NationStates Jolt Archive

RWP - Right to Work and Possessions

The United Nations,


Realizing that if some men are entitled by right to things brought to them by the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor,

Recalling that government has a certain proclivity towards restricting any and every right it can,



1. Decides that all people have the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation, should anyone be willing to hire them into such a position;

2. Decides that all people have the right to not pay to provide food, clothing, or recreation for people other than themselves;

3. Decides that all farmers have the right to raise and sell their products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living, should people be willing to pay them that;

4. Decides that all businessmen, large and small, have the right to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair government practices and domination by government-owned monopolies at home and abroad;

5. Decides that every person has the right to not pay for a home they will not live in;

6. Decides that every person has the right to not pay for medical care they will not use;

7. Decides that all people have the right to not pay for anyone's protection - including their own - from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.


---------------------------------------------------------

This is my proposal. If you wish to approve it, do a search for RWP.

Thank you.

This proposal is one that could really make a difference to the welfare and economic utility to millions throughout the world. This proposal has my full support, and I urge others to follow suit.

The text may be somewhat confusing, but it isn't difficult to comprehend. No one has any comments?

this text means that it would be impossible to impose income and industry taxes. How do you propose in such an event that the govermnet fund itself?

you are essentially advocating Anarchy with this proposal, and note that proposals enforcing a given policial or economic model on a country are in fact illegal in the UN.

Where does it prohibit taxes?

Anarchy would be the absence of police and laws against things such as murder or theft. I do believe that is the proper function of government, and as such did not add text prohibiting such things.

I agree with New Eriu...

the gov't would hae potentially no means to fund itself, and those that wish for the services would have to pay much more for them. Given that, I think that it's not a situation for the UN, but for gov'ts themselves to decide for.. that way it is not imposed upon many. Sheesh, why not go for total anarchy? But do it in your own nation, and let your people decide, don't impose it upon everyone.

(If I didn't understand the proposal.. so be it.. but that's how I saw it :P )

Where does it prohibit taxes?

Addmittedly, not directly, but it's implied. Basically its saying that no person should pay for services that they personally would never use.

This change is something that can NOT be inforced in all nations and must be decided within each nation.

If you don't want your citizens paying for health care they won't use, then don't issue health care. If you don't want your citizens paying for life insurance policies then don't issue life ensurance.

Don't force your economic model on the rest of the world, some countries cannot support it.

It is not "essentially" what it is. It is not "implicated." When the UN passes resolutions, it does not vote for them based on what it -could- be subset of (anarchy, totalitarianism, etc) and it disregards what is "implicated," because nothing that fails to be stated explicitly is taken into effect.


>>Don't force your economic model on the rest of the world, some countries cannot support it.<<

I can't support the perpetual influx of "free education for the first 30 years of your life!" bills or the "free healthcare, cold medicine, and cancer cures for all!" funding. You undoubtedly also oppose these sorts of resolutions, correct? It is the same concept, and based on the "let every nation choose for itself" premise, it would be the logical course. Same with the euthanasia resolution.

[quote="CAAP"]I agree with New Eriu...

the gov't would hae potentially no means to fund itself, and those that wish for the services would have to pay much more for them.

[\quote]

The government has the means to fund defense. It doesn't have the means to fund, for example, recreation. It can have a 100% income tax if it so wishes, however, it cannot be indiscriminately spent on recreational devices for all.

Also, I must point out that people pay for them regardless. There is no free lunch. That's an absolute, immutable fact. If government provides them, it merely means you're giving your money to a middleman to do it for you. And of course, you end up tipping the middleman a hefty sum besides.

Okay, since you say we have to look at 'explicit' rather than 'implicit'.

Decides that all businessmen, large and small, have the right to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair government practices and domination by government-owned monopolies at home and abroad;

what do you define as unfair? It's not explicit in the legislature therefore this line is rather pointless since the nation itself can deem 'fair'.

1. Decides that all people have the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation, should anyone be willing to hire them into such a position;

Even children? With this wording it becomes debatable wether or not new rules superimpose older legislature, but in New Eriu our official legislature says that any contradicting UN rules, the newer rule always supplants the older rule.

This legislature would explicitly give employers the right to hire minors for jobs unfit for minors.

5. Decides that every person has the right to not pay for a home they will not live in;

6. Decides that every person has the right to not pay for medical care they will not use;
Let's just pick on these two double negatives, Midgard X. What exactly does this mean? Let me see if I get the gist of whatever it is you're trying to push here ...

5. I don't have to pay for my neighbor's house because I don't live in it. I DO have to pay for my house because I live in it. I've sent my kids off to college and they're living in an apartment, but under this proposal I don't have any responsibility for them. Let them pay for their housing from their (non-existant) jobs. Woops, no income. Who pays?

6. I don't have to pay for health care I don't use. Since, as it happens I'm a doctor, virtually all the health care I work with I won't have to pay for. I can't require anyone who is not a patient to pay dime one. If a patient dies on me, nobody has to pay.

But wait a minute - both my hospital and I have expenses. That dead guy generated costs, and now I don't have anyone to collect from. Does the hosptial have to pay? Where are they going to get the money? It can't come from the government, because the government can't collect taxes that go to health care for anyone other than the patient. It can't come from the insurance companies because they no longer exist, since they don't have to pay for anyone other than themselves.

Midgard, you've got a nice little system here, but nobody's footing the bills. You've got more than double negatives working against you here.

We'll be ignoring this one.

Unfair government practices largely defined as government owning monopolies and regulating to the point of illegalizing free-market competition. It is true, however, that I did leave a slight amount of ambiguous breathing room for each respective nation to define other things.

By "All people have the right to... jobs," I mean that they have the right to jobs. It does not mean that employers have a right to enslave them, only that individuals have a choice. It's similar to common driving age limits. "Do you mean that we should let car manufacturers sell cars to 16 year-olds just to let them kill themselves?" No, I mean that they have the right to do as they please, in their own discretion, as they see fit. It does not mean anyone has the right to coerce them into anything.

If the child is willing to be employed and the employer is willing to employ, by your legislature, it is legal, despite the fact that there are further remifications for the child. I'm not talking about slavery, but child labour is the issue still.

Even in mines and factories.

[quote="Frisbeeteria"]

5. I don't have to pay for my neighbor's house because I don't live in it. I DO have to pay for my house because I live in it. I've sent my kids off to college and they're living in an apartment, but under this proposal I don't have any responsibility for them. Let them pay for their housing from their (non-existant) jobs. Woops, no income. Who pays?

---------------------------------

Whoever wants to. If the parents want to, they may. If their 18+ year-old kid can, they may. If the kid has friends, they can. If the kid finds a willing individual, he/she/it can. Really, though, it's none of our business.


---------------------------------

[quote=frisbee]
6. I don't have to pay for health care I don't use. Since, as it happens I'm a doctor, virtually all the health care I work with I won't have to pay for. I can't require anyone who is not a patient to pay dime one. If a patient dies on me, nobody has to pay.

But wait a minute - both my hospital and I have expenses. That dead guy generated costs, and now I don't have anyone to collect from. Does the hosptial have to pay? Where are they going to get the money? It can't come from the government, because the government can't collect taxes that go to health care for anyone other than the patient. It can't come from the insurance companies because they no longer exist, since they don't have to pay for anyone other than themselves.
--------------------------


1. There's a difference between coercion and contracts. If it an insurance company enters into a contract, it is obviously bound to it. It, however, does not have to pay for things that are not mandated by a contract that was conceived of mutual consension.

2. That's the hospital's business. If it's afraid someone may die, they should probably enter into a contract with the person's family stating that they will pay if the individual is unable. Otherwise they should insure that he has insurance before they touch him.

If a person puts a gun to your head, that's theft. We have laws that say you can't take someone else's money. Does that mean you can't take it if it's given to you? Obviously not. It means you cannot take it without the other's consent.

If contracts superceede this mandate, then it would be easy enoguh for countries to superceed it with a national contract, which makes this proposal useless.

(OOC

for example in the real world, most countries have something like a Social Security or Social Insurance number. When you got that number you essentially signed a contract stating you'd pay for all these benifits and whatnot.

you don't have to get an SSN or SIN card, but you'd find life very difficult with getting a job and whatnot.

/OOC)

If contracts superceede this mandate, then it would be easy enoguh for countries to superceed it with a national contract, which makes this proposal useless.

(OOC

for example in the real world, most countries have something like a Social Security or Social Insurance number. When you got that number you essentially signed a contract stating you'd pay for all these benifits and whatnot.

you don't have to get an SSN or SIN card, but you'd find life very difficult with getting a job and whatnot.

/OOC)

In that parochially particular in that scenario, it is still an option an opt out.

On a side note, I find it bemusing that issues are debated on technicalities rather than substance. On every proposal and resolution, people invariably scramble to find something wrong with it, rather than debating the issues.

people invariably scramble to find something wrong with it, rather than debating the issues.
I'll rise to that bait.
1. There's a difference between coercion and contracts.
2. That's the hospital's business.
We have laws that say you can't take someone else's money.
Oh no John no John no John no. You're totally missing the point here.

Nowhere in the LANGUAGE of your proposal do you state that there are any mitigating factors.

You've made absolute statements that say simple things like "every person has the right to not pay".

Your new "rights" are going to supercede TONS of laws that control many elements of labor, property, taxation and health care. That's gonna supercede contract law. That's gonna supercede theft and burglary laws.

This is an incredibly sweeping rearrangement of international economic systems. It destroys without replacing. No amount of explanation of "what you meant" will allow this proposal to be anything other than waste paper.

Go back to the drawing board. Define your assumptions. Pick a few areas that might use some help, instead of sweeping the entire world economy into a dumpster. Then, and only then, I might have another look.

M.J. Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria (annoyed)

people invariably scramble to find something wrong with it, rather than debating the issues.

Because most of the proposals I've seen to date have rammifications that go beyond the original scope of intent of the issue (as Frisbeeteria pointed out)

Once a proposal is made that concisely solves the problem and creates no new problems, then I will agree to it.

Go back to the drawing board. Define your assumptions. Pick a few areas that might use some help, instead of sweeping the entire world economy into a dumpster. Then, and only then, I might have another look.

I concur.

Human nature being what it is, any and all statements that are liable to become law MUST be dissected and turned inside out to make sure that there is absolutely no way that some corrupt, evil, or unscrupulous individual could turn it about and use it to exploit their neighbors.

That's why everyone looks for flaws in proposals.

Some law might say 'It's illegal to kill children' and sure as shootin someone's going to be able to get a shyster lawyer and a corrupt judge to agree that it means killing adults is legal.

That's a simple example I know, and a rather poor one now that I read it again, but it's the best I can do atm. Suffice it to say that if every aspect of every statement isn't laid out, all the prohibitions defined, all the allowances defined, the proposal will be 'interpreted' to mean something the author never intended.

Beyond all that, the Rogue Nation of Greenspoint sees the issues raised by this proposal as being National and not something the U.N. should be addressing.

James Moehlman
Assistant Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

Then I will suffice it to say that you are also voting against the current resolution, due to the fact that there are a good half dozen things that remain undefined.

>>Basic services should be offered to all citizens who are mentally-ill. <<

What's a basic service? Who's going to offer them?

>>This proposal would include a ban on physical abuse, forcing mentally-ill citizens to perform inhumane tasks, or forcing mentally-ill citizens to live and/or work in inhumane conditions. <<

What's an inhumane condition? What kind of task is inhumane?

>>A mental illness is defined as a psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others. <<

So if you have mood swings, you're a lunatic? I don't think that's what's meant, but that's what's said. Same with feelings and the phrase "relating to others." I have no clue what that means.


That resolution is passing by a rather large margin, and yet, nothing is defined. You are among the minority voters, correct?

Then I will suffice it to say that you are also voting against the current resolution, due to the fact that there are a good half dozen things that remain undefined.

Precisely. New Eriu is voing against the current resoloution for all the resons you mentioned.

Ok, I'll credit you (I'd guess no one else in this thread) for consistency.

Ok, I'll credit you (I'd guess no one else in this thread) for consistency.

[I}::smiles ambiguously::[/I]

Seriously though, rewrite the proposal, try to fix logical loopholes, and resubmit. I agree with some of what you said. Regarding farmers being able to basically 'run their own business'.

I like the idea generally that people should not have to pay for food, water and clothing, that they should be basic things everyone needs. However who would pay for it? It seems like a communist economic model. While I'm not entirely opposed to the concept of communism, I have never seen it applicable in practice, and many nations are opposed to the very thought of it.

However the remaining passages become ambiguous and could be misconstrued, so as a whole the proposal fails.

*cough*

2. ...all people have the right to not pay to provide food, clothing, or recreation for people OTHER THAN themselves.

Anyway.

Ok, I'll credit you (I'd guess no one else in this thread) for consistency.
Thanks, pal. You're truly the arbiter of fairness and democracy on these forums. [/sarcasm]

Apples and bananas, Midgard. Faybian's mental health proposal is also flawed, but the problems are far less grevious. Maybe there will be some folks who complain that cable TV and internet access should be included in Basic Services, and maybe not. Whatever. We can deal with that on a local level.

But Faybian didn't try to toss out our entire legal and economic system. Faybian didn't attempt to redefine the whole transnational concept of property and responsibility. Faybian appears to understand that you tackle big issues in small, easily corrected bites.

I'm a regional delegate, and I'll cast my 30 votes for my region's conscience, as always. They'll probably vote Yay, despite my recommendations against. In the meantime, I'll do my RD duty and try to keep bad proposals out of the quorum queue.

Does that meet your consistency guidelines, sir?

2. ...all people have the right to not pay to provide food, clothing, or recreation for people OTHER THAN themselves.

Oh right *shakes head*. I've been debating all day I don't know where I got that silly notion.

I stand corrected on this issue.

(edit sorry I musta hit the submit button twice by mistake.)

*has been following a bit of this* SOOOO basically the nation that suggested this (Midgard X) would be against the current resolution as well. Because if no one pays for anyone but themselves (considering the extreme case of EVERYONE follows this current forum debated resoultion) then these people with mental illness will not be provided for. And considering that ALL UN nations HAVE to follow all passed resoultions, where does that leave THIS resolution if the mentally handicapped one passes. It's a total contradiction.

Of course, the current resolution doesn't say government has to provide anything. Just that basic services should be provided. It leaves it to nations to determine what a basic service is, and who should provide it.

And given that my resolution only prohibits coercion, they don't contradict.

Realizing that if some men are entitled by right to things brought to them by the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor

I question your opening statement MidgardX. You seem to be describing something akin to a feudal kingdom. I view slave labor as involuntary servitude. If there are wages for work performed thrown in, then whatever profits are earned for the "entitled man"are not things bestowed by "right" but rather earned by careful business practices.