NationStates Jolt Archive


Declaration of Liberty

The Global Market
29-12-2003, 21:15
UN Resolution Proposed (give me advice):
Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It’s not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights—the “right” to education, the “right” to health care, the “right” to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights; those are the rations of slavery—hay and a barn for human cattle.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

To that effect, for the purpose of securing liberty to the people of the world, these following rights ought to be secured for all lawabiding people:

The right to nonviolently associate, and also the right not to associate at all. If I want you in my house, I have the right to invite you to it. If I don't want you in my house, there's no reason I should be forced to let you in.

The right to nonviolently express ideas, and also the right not to express ideas at all. The real United Nations has already made this clear: "The free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny... Beware of he who would seek to control your information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."

The right to due process. Any government that punishes people without first proving them guilty under the law [except when absolutely necessary] is properly called a tyranny. This also means the right to seek legal redress against wrongs, to appeal, to sue and be sued, etc., etc.

The right to emigrate, and, by the same logic, the right not to be deported. Individuals are sovereign over themselves and their property. Hence, they have the right to move around when they please.

The right to nonviolently contract with other individuals. This is perhaps the keystone right on which all other rights depend. Competent individuals must be allowed to create and to execute legally binding contracts with other competent individuals so long as no coercion or fraud is involved. This is the basis for all of civil society, the biggest step forward in human interaction since the broadsword.

This leads to the right to waive your rights through contract. If an employer and a worker sign a contract that guarentees the worker two years' work, the employer voluntarily gives away his freedom of association for that period of time as he is contractually bound to associate with the worker (unless the worker also violates part of the contract). Likewise, if you buy music with the contract that you will not copy it, you waive your right to free expression in copying.
_Myopia_
30-12-2003, 02:00
Are you trying to sneak in a ban on minimum wage in the last paragraph?

Also, I don't think abolishing all restrictions on immigration (the right not to be deported) will find lots of support.

The "except when absolutely necessary" bit in the due process paragraph is quite a big loophole - you might want to specify a bit.

EDIT: Oh, and finally, that opening paragraph complaining about the welfare state is irrelevant and is only going to put people off who might otherwise agree with the rest (i.e. pro-civil rights economic lefties).
The Global Market
30-12-2003, 02:24
Are you trying to sneak in a ban on minimum wage in the last paragraph?

Also, I don't think abolishing all restrictions on immigration (the right not to be deported) will find lots of support.

The "except when absolutely necessary" bit in the due process paragraph is quite a big loophole - you might want to specify a bit.

EDIT: Oh, and finally, that opening paragraph complaining about the welfare state is irrelevant and is only going to put people off who might otherwise agree with the rest (i.e. pro-civil rights economic lefties).

Actually the ban on the minimum wage comes in the second-to-last paragraph.

Immigration laws are not banned -- only emigration laws are.

And the preamble is merely a statement on ideals.

I guess I'll submit something else similiar later.
_Myopia_
30-12-2003, 02:29
The problem is, when you submit big chunks like this, almost everyone dislikes at least one thing. Why don't you try splitting them up and submitting separate proposals - i.e. "Freedom of association" proposal, then the "Freedom of Information" proposal, etc.

Sorry if I don't reply - it's 1:30 a.m. here and I'm falling asleep.
The Global Market
30-12-2003, 02:31
The problem is, when you submit big chunks like this, almost everyone dislikes at least one thing. Why don't you try splitting them up and submitting separate proposals - i.e. "Freedom of association" proposal, then the "Freedom of Information" proposal, etc.

Sorry if I don't reply - it's 1:30 a.m. here and I'm falling asleep.

And I'm desperately trying to procrastinate on the inevitable writing of my governor's school essays ... shudders ...
Goobergunchia
30-12-2003, 02:50
The problem is, when you submit big chunks like this, almost everyone dislikes at least one thing. Why don't you try splitting them up and submitting separate proposals - i.e. "Freedom of association" proposal, then the "Freedom of Information" proposal, etc.

I concur. That's what killed the Cato Acts.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
_Myopia_
30-12-2003, 16:04
If you still have the Cato Acts text, split it and this idea into a few sensible chunks and make several proposals. Looking through the past UN resolution lists, I see that there has never actually been a free speech/freedom of information resolution, so that would be a good place to start.

EDIT: oops, I see you've already posted something about a freedom of info act