NationStates Jolt Archive

Whaddaya think of this one, then? I may have been a tad too caffeinated while writing it (and this), but it should be good for debate, and might even be the first of mine to make it through (ah - to change the world...):

Considering that:

The Global AIDS disaster continues to spread, killing and debilitating the working population of many poor and deprived nations;

That:

World population increases threaten to exhaust valuable resources, devastate the environment, and reduce geopolitical stability;

And that:

Some nations and other organisations seek to ban or prevent the use of condoms, which are a valuable tool in preventing both the spread of HIV and unwanted pregnancies;

I propose that all trade barriers, taxes and tariffs upon trade in condoms of a good and certified standard be made illegal within the UN.

And all in one sentence, subdivided into seven paragraphs (grammatical rules are for other people).

Personaly, I think it is a much needed proposal.

I can't see what reason there is to argue against it.

In general we can support this. We will still impose a luxury tax on the glow-in-the-dark ticklers.

I totally agree, condoms should be tax-free, that will probably make the population happier too.

There is a very good reason to argue against this proposal - many religions and philosophies forbid contraception. The Imperial Government of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria will have nothing to do with the distribution, subsidisation, support or condoning of the use of contraceptives of any kind.

There is a very good reason to argue against this proposal - many religions and philosophies forbid contraception. The Imperial Government of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria will have nothing to do with the distribution, subsidisation, support or condoning of the use of contraceptives of any kind.

I thought the proposal was to make condoms more readly available and cheaper.

Maybe i've missed something , could someone highlight the bit in the proposal where it says that people "have to wear one" by law.

Thank you for your support, Dorriszappa and Alfonia. Now prithee, you and those like unto you, lobby thy delegates, and if you be delegates yourselves, lend me your votes! Mmh, mangling archaisms and grammer on one thread...

Pantocratoria,

Personally, I made the decision that this would be a good idea on secular principles. It is true that some interpretations of the messages of some religions would demand the non-use of contraception, including such mainstream voices as the Pope. But is it really the business of the state to enforce sacred law? Both my state's and the UN's charters are purely secular, and in the absence of harm to humans and the presence of human benefit, I do honestly believe this proposal is worth supporting.

The Global AIDS disaster continues to spread, killing and debilitating the working population of many poor and deprived nations;

I just feel the need to point out that the ENTIRE AIDs epidemic could have been avoided if we'd just quarantined a few people at the start. The present situation, on the other hand, is what you get when you listen to wusses who would rather risk an eventual total of billions of lives so that we can let four or five walk free. But, hey, the problem is here now, so we need to deal with it now.

I propose that all trade barriers, taxes and tariffs upon trade in condoms of a good and certified standard be made illegal within the UN.

Removing all taxes and tariffs? Might it be better to leave decisions like that to the free states of the world? Although you could argue that reduced healthcare costs easily offset the lost revenue from condom-sales -- in states that provide healthcare, that is, since I suppose there are probably still some that don't.

I oppose the removal of tariffs -- there are a great many nations in the world who depend on revenue from tariffs to safeguard their economies and provide funds for their government to function.

But is it really the business of the state to enforce sacred law?

The state determines its own business. Just because your government stays out of religion doesn't mean that everyone else's has to.

your only removing ther tarrifs from condoms... i have yet to see a country make its money on taxing the import of condoms...


But I forgot all about how the prevention of gametes from joining was a horrible sin in some peoples eyes... I figured most people had a grounding in biology and how things worked.

Santin,

I'm going to disagree with all your points.

First up, we didn't know about AIDS when it first started, or even for decades after - it took a little time before it got properly established. And although there has been a lot of incompetence of all kinds in dealing with this epidemic, with notable examples being the Chinese blood donor service and Thabo Mbeki for his refusal to believe the scientists, I don't think quarantine is or ever has been a serious answer.

Surely the removal of tariffs upon condoms alone isn't going to do any government's budget too much damage. And if they don't like the competition provided by foreign condoms, they can always make their own and subsidise them...

And as for what is the state's business, OK. Make it your state's business - but the UN still has power in matters of trade, and their mandate is secular.

Zilliarn,

Thank you for your insightful input. I hope you don't mind my "dittoing" a part of your post.

First up, we didn't know about AIDS when it first started, or even for decades after - it took a little time before it got properly established. And although there has been a lot of incompetence of all kinds in dealing with this epidemic, with notable examples being the Chinese blood donor service and Thabo Mbeki for his refusal to believe the scientists, I don't think quarantine is or ever has been a serious answer.

We didn't know about AIDs for decades, eh? A few years, perhaps, but your opinion of the CDC appears to be even lower than mine. I don't think that we could have stopped AIDs completely, but we certainly could have narrowed its scope down from "world crippling epidemic." If there are 100 cases, and you can quarantine 95 of them, should you? If you said no, did you take into account the exponential nature of disease? Especially if the disease in question is 100% fatal and you have no idea how it spreads? That's the kind of data they had to work with.

Quarantine could never work with a large scale. When something is small, not even a thousand cases, it should be a considerable option.

Then again, this is getting off topic, and I don't think either of us will convince the other. Continue if you want.

Surely the removal of tariffs upon condoms alone isn't going to do any government's budget too much damage. And if they don't like the competition provided by foreign condoms, they can always make their own and subsidise them...

I don't suggest that removing tariffs on condoms would cripple anyone, but I do suggest that the concept of removing tariffs would. What industry is next on your list? What industry is next on Joe Q. Nation's list of items that should be traded freely and without restriction? Tariffs are an integral part of government function, and I have not seen a good reason to support banning any of them just yet. Yes, they can inconvenient for international issues -- that's largely the point.

What happens when someone decides that income taxes are illegal? Do we just say, "Well, the UN can do what it wants. Tough cookies." Your response will probably be that no such proposal would pass, but bear in mind that imperialism frequently appears in degrees, not all at once.

I mainly protest the removal of tariffs as a blow to the sovereignty of my nation and all the nations of the world. Can we not manage our own economies?

And if they don't like the competition provided by foreign condoms, they can always make their own and subsidise them...

The difference between tariffs and subsidies is that one is profitable and the other is not.

And as for what is the state's business, OK. Make it your state's business - but the UN still has power in matters of trade, and their mandate is secular.

Secular mandates could also be called atheist mandates. I'm not the person to debate this particular aspect of the issue -- I don't believe that a government should ban condoms. I presume someone else does, seeing as this is the internet, so I'll let them take the stupid stance.

LOK could certainly support this, although it seems anyone who wants a condom can certainly get a supply simply by going to their local health department. Of course, not everyone knows this.

As to the contraceptive issue, this is being proposed as a health issue, not a contraceptive issue. No arguement.

Santin,

On the issue of the dates of discovery and origin of AIDS, the following appear to be the facts:

1) AIDS was first identified in 1981.
2) HIV is believed to have first spread to the US in the late 1970s - therefore, there does indeed seem to be a gap of only a few years within the US. However, it should be pointed out that HIV does not cause AIDS until some time after initial infection - I think the average delay is about 2 years, untreated - and I don't think it was until 1989 that we started to get decent serological tests to tell us if someone was infected. Therefore quarantine would seem to not to have been an option even in that one country - people would still have been passing on the disease without anyone knowing they had it.
3) The HIV virus has been found in blood samples taken from Africans going back to the early 1960s, and even then its genetic code was significantly different to that of the SIVs (simian immunodeficiency viruses), suggesting that it first crossed over some time before, and had been slow to initially establish itself.

Overall, I don't think quarantine would have worked, at any point since 1981; but a lot more could have been done then to delay its spread.

As for the matter of managing ones own economies; in the real world, members of the WTO are expected to abide by that organisation's rules on tariffs (one example of which would be the hefty US tariffs on imported steel, which have recently been found to be in breach of prior trade agreements after an 18 month court case and appeals procedure, and liable for retributive sanctions to the sum of $2.4 billion by the EU if not dropped within a month), and since we lack a seperate WTO in this gaming world, it seems that the UN will have to fill that position. It might also be judged that this agreement affords all nations some further protection against the spread of HIV; and therefore those who would refuse to abide by it might be imperilling the security of their neighbours. Just a thought ;-)

[Bump]

We in Gurthark support this proposal. It's a public health issue of international concern (a country that fosters an AIDS epidemic within its own borders becomes a ticking time-bomb internationally). In addition, while we support the right of individuals to refuse condoms on religious grounds, we do not support the right of governments to make such religious decisions for their citizens.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

The Great Nation of Putergeeks supports this Proposal.


On an additional note, the Great Nation of Putergeeks hopes to see an end to

"all trade barriers, taxes and tariffs upon trade in ALL FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL of a good and certified standard be made illegal within the UN"

as we feel that there are other forms of birth control that people use.

I agree with Putergeeks. A removal of taxes on condoms is a good start, though rather pointless... At least in the US (and I imagine other places), condoms are available at no cost from many governmentally-funded hospitals, clinics, etc. For a government to put a tariff on something it distributes at no cost just seems rather redundant, but if someone wants to do so, more power to them...

Aids is not something you use a quarantine for. It is deadly, yes, but it is not contagious, and only under prescribed conditions can you contract it. It has a high individual risk, but a low risk to the community. Also people with AIDs can live for years and years after the contraction of hiv, are you suggesting a quarantine for immense legnths of time? Do you have any idea what this would cost?

And correct me if i'm wrong isn't AIDs only a level 3 pathogen?

In spirit, I support this resolution, as a victory for free trade. I am however concerned about the word "taxes". Does this mean that we will have to abolish sales tax?

Pantocratoria,

Personally, I made the decision that this would be a good idea on secular principles. It is true that some interpretations of the messages of some religions would demand the non-use of contraception, including such mainstream voices as the Pope. But is it really the business of the state to enforce sacred law? Both my state's and the UN's charters are purely secular, and in the absence of harm to humans and the presence of human benefit, I do honestly believe this proposal is worth supporting.
But you are forcing them to be involved, it's fine for secular states but not for religous states. By doing so you are forcing them to go against their religion, therefore defying freedom of religion. However it is a nessasary purposal, so I would add an 8th paragraph which states, "This is null and void in those nations which are run by religous authoritys".

This gets rid of the messy freedom of religion debate which we all know will happen with the current purposal.

In spirit, I support this resolution, as a victory for free trade. I am however concerned about the word "taxes". Does this mean that we will have to abolish sales tax?

Only on condoms.

We in Gurthark are generally suspicious of the sales tax anyway, since it tends to be regressive. We have already abolished it for goods that promote the public health, as well as for "basic necessities," which is unfortunately a fairly complex category (we are relatively free from social problems, but alas, bureaucracy is one we have not yet tackled successfully), so I won't bother to explain it here.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

In spirit, I support this resolution, as a victory for free trade. I am however concerned about the word "taxes". Does this mean that we will have to abolish sales tax?

Only on condoms.

We in Gurthark are generally suspicious of the sales tax anyway, since it tends to be regressive. We have already abolished it for goods that promote the public health, as well as for "basic necessities," which is unfortunately a fairly complex category (we are relatively free from social problems, but alas, bureaucracy is one we have not yet tackled successfully), so I won't bother to explain it here.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Hmm... I believe that the Sales/Consumption-Based Tax is a better way of getting revenue than the Income Tax. But for now we'll have to agree to disagree, I really don't want to get into it tonight.

Condoms should be free or incredibly cheap so that even low income people are economically able to buy them. I do agree that condoms that glow in the dark or colored should not be free and be taxed. But, the regular good-old condoms should be free for the well-being of the population.

also, a proposal should be written to launch a massive education campaing about AIDS and prevention.
HIV testing should be free and more reasearch center should be establish...which would become a great economical advantage for the goverment, more jobs, more pharmaceutical companies investing in the goverment...The goverment should also be part of the shareholders in each of this company...good for getting some income.

Hmm... I believe that the Sales/Consumption-Based Tax is a better way of getting revenue than the Income Tax. But for now we'll have to agree to disagree, I really don't want to get into it tonight.

Eh... so you feel better about penalizing those who are spending thier money, and helping the economy then penalizing those who are saving thier money and contributing nothing to society?

Firstly, even though I am in favour of the proposal, I am not a regional delegate, and so cannot put my name to it officially just yet.

Secondly, HIV/AIDS is a very old disease. To quarantine it when it started out would have meant to stop the slave trade before it started. It was the west Africans who were shipped out to America, Britain, etc. as slaves who were the original carriers of the disease, but it was not so fatal then as it is now.

Thirdly, the disease did not even originate in humans and primates. There is genetic evidence that a form of the disease devastated the populations of big cats about a million years ago, so now most, if not all, felines are genetically resistant to FIV (Feline Immuno-deficiency Virus.)

Lastly, removing all tariffs and taxes on something that is contraband in one's country wouldn't really matter, would it? Since it can't go in, no taxes or tariffs can be put on it in the first place. The proposal would simply be worth nothing to those countries.

I would just like to say that I think the removal of taxes from condoms is a brilliant idea. It is not only HIV/AIDS that are a problem, there are various other sexually transmitted diseases such as Herpes and Gonorreah which can endanger fertility etc.

In my nation we provide a free contraception service as part of our NHS and although my government respects the right of everyone to hold their own religious beliefs, and in fact promotes religious tolerance and diversity, we do not encourage outmoded views on a subject as serious as the health and wellbeing of our people. As someone pointed out earlier on this forum, no one is being forced to wear condoms, but for those sensible enough to come to that decision for themselves, it is only right that they be provided with condoms as cheaply as possible - if not freely.

We have a number of sexual health clinics in my nation which all hand out free condoms - no appointment neccessary. We have also recently started a programme of handing out free condoms in nightclubs, bars, pubs and festivals, and have since seen numbers of STDs and unwanted pregnancies drop dramatically. Researchers into this area believe this is because we are targeting people who are in a position where they are likely to find themselves "caught short" as it were, with no time to go and get hold of condoms, that the experiment has been so successful.

In closing once again may I commend the introduction of tax free condoms.

Queen Francesca Maria :wink:

There is a very good reason to argue against this proposal - many religions and philosophies forbid contraception. The Imperial Government of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria will have nothing to do with the distribution, subsidisation, support or condoning of the use of contraceptives of any kind.

I thought the proposal was to make condoms more readly available and cheaper.

Maybe i've missed something , could someone highlight the bit in the proposal where it says that people "have to wear one" by law.

You have missed something. We're not going to make the things more readily available or cheaper when we disapprove of their use, that would be assisting their distribution!

Pantocratoria,

Personally, I made the decision that this would be a good idea on secular principles. It is true that some interpretations of the messages of some religions would demand the non-use of contraception, including such mainstream voices as the Pope. But is it really the business of the state to enforce sacred law? Both my state's and the UN's charters are purely secular, and in the absence of harm to humans and the presence of human benefit, I do honestly believe this proposal is worth supporting.

Absolutely, it is the duty of the Imperial Government of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria to enforce any and all laws which apply on its soil, including canon laws. Simply because your government chooses to limit itself to a subset of the duties of a truly responsible government does not mean that all governments will be equally indifferent to the spiritual well-being of their charges.

We find that the proposal is extremely harmful to the spiritual well-being of the human person, and shall vigorously lobby against it.

Pantocratoria,

Personally, I made the decision that this would be a good idea on secular principles. It is true that some interpretations of the messages of some religions would demand the non-use of contraception, including such mainstream voices as the Pope. But is it really the business of the state to enforce sacred law? Both my state's and the UN's charters are purely secular, and in the absence of harm to humans and the presence of human benefit, I do honestly believe this proposal is worth supporting.
But you are forcing them to be involved, it's fine for secular states but not for religous states. By doing so you are forcing them to go against their religion, therefore defying freedom of religion. However it is a nessasary purposal, so I would add an 8th paragraph which states, "This is null and void in those nations which are run by religous authoritys".

This gets rid of the messy freedom of religion debate which we all know will happen with the current purposal.

We thank the people of the Dark Pheonix for standing up for religious freedom. However, the clause would be inadequate. The Holy Empire of Pantocratoria is not run by the "religious authorities", ie the Church, but by the Emperor and his Imperial Government. Perhaps the paragraph should instead be altered to say "This proposal is not applicable to those nations whose governments object to it on religious grounds."?

Either way, the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria will oppose this proposal.

We are opposed to this.

We Can tax Cigarrettes
We Can Alcohol
We can tax Drugs

We can tax all sorts of things that either Harm us or promote Harmful behavior... Taxing condoms is just a fun money-earning way to say "Hey, you're gonna fornicate, but you want to do it safely? Fine, whatever, but pay me first! ^_^"

I think this is a bad proposition...

Oh well, i left the UN today anyway...

Enguld agrees with the proposal.

We support it. Were it not for the AIDS epidemic, we would oppose it as an infringement on national sovereignty, but a worldwide crisis requires that some adjustments to that concept be made.

We thank the people of the Dark Pheonix for standing up for religious freedom. However, the clause would be inadequate. The Holy Empire of Pantocratoria is not run by the "religious authorities", ie the Church, but by the Emperor and his Imperial Government. Perhaps the paragraph should instead be altered to say "This proposal is not applicable to those nations whose governments object to it on religious grounds."?

Either way, the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria will oppose this proposal.

The Community of Gurthark is a staunch advocate of religious freedom, so long as it does not impinge on the rights of others.

However, supporting theocracies is *not* supporting religious freedom; it is, instead, allowing its destruction. Theocracies do not allow individuals to make decisions based on their own religious conscience; rather, they force a particular ideology on their citizens. As I said before, we in Gurthark fully support the right of any individual to refuse condoms for religious reasons. We do not, however, support the right of the state to take condoms out of people's hands for religious reasons.

Religious freedom is something that applies at the individual level, not the level of the state.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Bah, your division of what is and isn't the responsibility of the state is arbitrary and meaningless. Besides, the Imperial Government isn't taking condoms out of people's hands - it is preventing them from ever getting into the hands of any Pantocratorian subject.

free condoms for everyone!!! I propose that not only should condoms be tax free but they should be made so cheap that they are almost free..buy in bulk and share the wealth, irradicate disease and unnecessary weird occurrances..marraige is the ultimate answer to these problems but you see all the idiots who don't listen to that simple fact, need condoms therefore not to infect the world with more or their stupidity, carried in their offspring brought about by drugs and lack of condoms... until people start being born with more than half a brain condoms are a must and they must be tax free! :!:

OOC: Pantocratoria, I'm highly impressed by your IC playing.

IC: Pantocratoria, I am distressed and appalled by your stance on this issue. Surely any reasoning behind the blockage of birth control methods is based on a belief in the sanctity of life? Would it not then be true that a birth control method which is also a highly effective preventative measure against the most widely lethal (ie most deaths annually caused in the global population) infectious disease today actually does as much to preserve life as to prevent it? Surely, it is true that those practitioners of whatever your national religion may be would hate to be deprived of the right to practice their spiritual beliefs, and would hate to have another religion's edicts imposed upon them wherever they may be in the world. Surely then, you can agree that imposing your own religion's edicts to the detriment of people's lives and health globally is hardly a healthy activity?

Francesca Maria, Gurthark, Englund, Moontian, Morrigan, Duch Land, Putergeeks,

Thank you for your support of this proposal (even if Moontian's contentions seem a tad unlikely to me - do you have a source for that "HIV has been around in humans for hundreds of years" statement?)

Everybody,

Vote! Support this proposal now, before it be consigned to the dustbin of the not-quite-made-its! Lobby thy delegates!

OOC: Thanks! :D

IC:

The Pantocratorian objection to condoms is based on both the Catholic belief in the sanctity of human life AND in the conviction that true conjugal love must preclude the use of contraceptives. While the Imperial Government is distressed that so many people die as a result of AIDS, the disease is fairly uncommon in Pantocratoria. Perhaps this allows us to look at the larger issues with less impediments than those "on the front lines", so to speak.

The Imperial Government's objection to contraceptives is simply that it lowers sexual intercourse, an act of conjugal love between a man and wife, to an act of pleasure alone (since there is no reproductive aspect to the act when contraception is employed). Encouraging the use of contraceptives therefore encourages our subjects to have sex for pleasure alone. This leads to pre-marital sex, promiscuity and adultery, moral evils from which we are compelled to protect our subjects.

The absolute best thing anybody can do to avoid contracting AIDS is to only have sexual relations with their spouse (unless of course their spouse has AIDS, but still, the point stands). Monogamy is the real answer to the AIDS problem, not free or subsidised contraceptives, which introduce a moral evil, and can lead to a false sense of security.

We are not callous to the AIDS problem, but our duty to the citizens of Pantocratoria calls us to seek to protect both their physical AND spiritual well-being. By encouraging or allowing the use of contraceptives, we would be negligent in the second part of that duty of care. Furthermore, the Imperial Government feels that the governments of the rest of the world share this common duty of protecting the well-being of their citizens, both physical and spiritual. We are not imposing religious edicts to the detriment of humanity, far from it, we are calling on all world governments to recognise their duty of care to their citizens.

Princess Irene
Chancellor of the Imperial Government of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria

This is utter nonsense. Again, if the sluts and whores in the deepest darkest slums of Raysia want to use condoms, I should be allowed to tax them.

*Yet another reason why I left the UN :P*

Ah, a fine rebuttal. But don't all your married couples regret giving up all that wholesome conjugal love as soon as they've had their own ideal number of children?

Anyways, the Lohentopian government/civil liberties union is about to end this day's session. Good to to you all,

Lohen

Based on our astronomical birthrate, we can only assume that Pantocratorian married couples don't have an "ideal number" of children at which point they would like to stop. In fact, they seem quite content to continue to produce them at an alarmingly high rate.

Princess Irene
Chancellor

While your propsal seems to be good I believe it is up to individual nations to decide. In addition perhaps nations shold spend more money and time on sex education to deal with these problems.

Yes! I agree! I second the notion that you all should have government sponsored Abstinance Education programs!

the freeland of larune supports this proposal for it is a good start and unlike others i think that this hardly affects ones religious beliefs you're not forcing people to wear them. we wholheartedly support this condom encouragement

Bah, your division of what is and isn't the responsibility of the state is arbitrary and meaningless. Besides, the Imperial Government isn't taking condoms out of people's hands - it is preventing them from ever getting into the hands of any Pantocratorian subject.

I beg to differ about the arbitrariness of our beliefs about the role of the state. It is quite principled: the government must protect the things that *only* the government can protect:

1. It must protect the rights of individuals from direct infringement by other individuals, by requiring informed consent where appropriate. This includes law enforcement against most "standard" crimes, as well as labeling laws, laws protecting minors, etc.
2. It must protect common goods from the "tragedy of the commons" so as to ensure that all members of the community are able to enjoy these common goods. This includes environmental regulations and laws restricting what people can do in public spaces.
3. It must ensure that all of its society's members have a chance to live with dignity, even in the face of misfortune. This includes welfare, minimum wage laws, etc.

(Support of public education is a very special case in that it falls into all three categories--education enables informed consent, a high culture that is only maintainable with an educated populace is a public good, and education makes it much easier to live a life with dignity--which is why it is accorded a special place in our governmental priorities.)

When the government takes action on these issues, even if it reduces freedom in the short-term by doing so, it increases the overall level of freedom of its people: By protecting them from the depredations of others, by allowing them to enjoy their common property, and by ensuring them the basic necessities for living a truly free life.

Appointing the government in charge of the "spiritual well-being" of its people does not increase their freedoms in either the short or long term.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

[OOC: I agree with the compliments--please don't let the fact that I--well, Miranda, but we more-or-less agree on this point--am disagreeing with you vociferously imply that I don't appreciate the well-thought-out RP.]

as leader of the holy empire of demon saber i believe that this law is quite nessesary but that each gov should choose how 2 disperse them to their people

as leader of the holy empire of demon saber i believe that this law is quite nessesary but that each gov should choose how 2 disperse them to their people

This is a good idea. Condoms are legitimate products, and this prevents governments from regulating the sale of them across international borders and therefore promotes individual rights.

I beg to differ about the arbitrariness of our beliefs about the role of the state. It is quite principled: the government must protect the things that *only* the government can protect:

1. It must protect the rights of individuals from direct infringement by other individuals, by requiring informed consent where appropriate. This includes law enforcement against most "standard" crimes, as well as labeling laws, laws protecting minors, etc.
2. It must protect common goods from the "tragedy of the commons" so as to ensure that all members of the community are able to enjoy these common goods. This includes environmental regulations and laws restricting what people can do in public spaces.
3. It must ensure that all of its society's members have a chance to live with dignity, even in the face of misfortune. This includes welfare, minimum wage laws, etc.

(Support of public education is a very special case in that it falls into all three categories--education enables informed consent, a high culture that is only maintainable with an educated populace is a public good, and education makes it much easier to live a life with dignity--which is why it is accorded a special place in our governmental priorities.)

When the government takes action on these issues, even if it reduces freedom in the short-term by doing so, it increases the overall level of freedom of its people: By protecting them from the depredations of others, by allowing them to enjoy their common property, and by ensuring them the basic necessities for living a truly free life.

Appointing the government in charge of the "spiritual well-being" of its people does not increase their freedoms in either the short or long term.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

[OOC: I agree with the compliments--please don't let the fact that I--well, Miranda, but we more-or-less agree on this point--am disagreeing with you vociferously imply that I don't appreciate the well-thought-out RP.]

OOC: I treat everything as if it is IC unless it is quite obviously OOC anyway, so you needn't worry about giving the wrong impression!

IC:

Surely Your Excellency realises that your own definition of the "role of the state" was initially determined in an arbitrary fashion. You have formed an opinion of what the role of a government should be. However, your opinion carries no wait in the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria, and suggesting that your opinion is an authoritative definition of the role of the state is arbitrary in that in doing so, you accept your personal opinion as being a universal definition, and yet challenge the legitimacy of the Pantocratorian opinion. You have arbitrarily chosen one opinion over another, which isn't to say that this selection has been random, simply that it is biased and therefore irrelevant.

The only universal definition of the role of the state is simply this "the role of the state is to do whatever it is the state does." In the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria, Imperial Perogative determines what is and isn't the responsibility of the Imperial Government.

This whole discussion departs on a strange tangent from the initial discussion, however it does have one point of relevance - simply that nobody can simply say that "it isn't the role of the state to forbid or restrict the use of contraceptives" and expect such a statement to hold any sort of weight with anbody outside of their own country. We are thrilled for the government of the Community of Gurthark that it doesn't feel the need to see to the spiritual well-being of Gurtharkians. However, the Imperial Government neither shares the Gurtharkian opinion as to what the role of the state is, nor its negligence in its duty of care to its citizenry.

Princess Irene
Chancellor of the Imperial Government of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria

By this argument, no nation would *ever* be able to condemn another for its government's behavior. I'm uninclined to use Ithuania-type debate tactics of saying "this is just obviously what objective morality is; anyone who disagrees is a moron" and believing that to be an adequate rejoinder, but I'm not willing to devolve into complete moral relativism.

It is perhaps possible--indeed, it seems likely--that I *won't* be able to convince you that "real freedom" is a more universal value than one religion (out of many)'s account of "spiritual well-being." That would be sad--it's one of the limits of moral debate that it can overcome surface differences in values but not generally deep-seated ones (just as scientific debates can overcome differences of opinion about particular scientific facts, but not about large-scale evidentiary theories). If that's the case, we may simply need to agree to disagree...but I'll still support the proposal.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

By my argument, a state could most certainly criticise the actions of another state. But nobody can say "this is not the role of the state". You can certainly point out that in your misguided opinion, the Imperial Government of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria should support this proposal, but you cannot say that it is not "the role of the state" to restrict the use of contraceptives for whatever purpose. The reverse side of that would be to say that it is not the role of the state to support this resolution! This is why your assertion as to the role of the state is arbitrary.

My point was simple - one can always say that it believes a government's policy is wrong, but one cannot say that it isn't the role of the government to make such policy.

Pantocratoria will be voting against this resolution. If you think it is wrong of us to do so, that is your opinion. But it is most certainly within the role of the Pantocratorian Imperial Government to vote for or against this resolution.

Princess Irene
Chancellor, Holy Empire of Pantocratoria

do you have a source for that "HIV has been around in humans for hundreds of years" statement?

Yes, I have the National Geographic as a source for it. I also have an interesting link:
http://veederandld.20m.com/greports/112400.html