NationStates Jolt Archive

A week ago or so I proposed an idea called "The Right to Choose" which I posted here. I got a lot of great feedback for editions, so I revised and here it is again. Feel free to post new ideas, or any other comments on the proposal.


The Right to Choose
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Zachnia
Description: Where as: People have a right to their own choices, and that crime's in general need victims, be it proposed that people have the right to choose:

I Whether to engage is using marijuana or not.

II Whether to engage in other potentially harmful activites (i.e. drinking alcohol, eating fatty foods, and committing suicide)

III What the gender of their marriage partner is, this would legalize gay marriage.

IV Whether to use their money for gambling purposes or not.

V Whether to engage in sexual acts with another consenting adult (Anyone above the age of 1 8) Whether is be taped, or paid for, or both.

VI What school to go to, finicial ability providing. This would make home schooling and private schooling legal.

VII To spend their money on whatever legal items they want.


In conlcusion: One right to choose what they like with their own bodies, and money it not the matter of the state. If this proposal passes it will be a few steps in the right direction, towards individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

Approvals: 1 (Zachnia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Jan 21 2004

Just by the way, that 8) is supposed to be an eight.

I strongly agree with your position, and will support it and promote it till the day I die. But one thing: You didn't mention abortions. What about those?

Zachnia you don't mention age limits on your proposal save in section V. Hoydonia could not back such a proposal if this involves allowing children legal drug use or gambling.

Homosexual merrages are already legalised as a result of the Gay Rights act. We also have a separate clause in the UN that allows for sexual freedoms of individuals behind closed doors.

The rest of them are too all-sweeping for New Eriu to support. You are essentiually saying "Legalise Recreational Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution, Alchohol, and Suicide" all in one bill.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint has already passed legislation which outlaws several issues listed in this proposal, and can not support it.

We would also like to ask, as a side note, why is it that U.N. members continue to propose resolutions that deal with ISSUES?

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

I strongly agree with your position, and will support it and promote it till the day I die. But one thing: You didn't mention abortions. What about those?

I'm glad you support my proposal. I did not include abortion because I thought that would be clumping too many different ideas into one proposal.

Zachnia you don't mention age limits on your proposal save in section V. Hoydonia could not back such a proposal if this involves allowing children legal drug use or gambling.

Well, this was intended for people in general. We think it is the responsibility to "illegalize" and discourage use of those things, if they see it fit for their child. However, it should be up to the parents if their children should be doing these things.

We would also like to ask, as a side note, why is it that U.N. members continue to propose resolutions that deal with ISSUES?

Because, when the issue system deals with most moral issues, if we didn't also try to deal with those issues in the NSUN, then the NSUN would quickly run out of stuff to do.

On this proposal, I'm unsure, because the bit at the end saying "money it not the matter of the state" (I assume that should be "money is...") could be interpreted as a ban on taxation. I do however agree strongly with all the sovereignty over one's body stuff. Perhaps if it was broken down into its individual issues, it would be better, especially since several of the included points would be, if on their own, under different classifications (e.g. the recreational drugs category, gambling category etc.)

We would also like to ask, as a side note, why is it that U.N. members continue to propose resolutions that deal with ISSUES?

Because, when the issue system deals with most moral issues, if we didn't also try to deal with those issues in the NSUN, then the NSUN would quickly run out of stuff to do.

On this proposal, I'm unsure, because the bit at the end saying "money it not the matter of the state" (I assume that should be "money is...") could be interpreted as a ban on taxation. I do however agree strongly with all the sovereignty over one's body stuff. Perhaps if it was broken down into its individual issues, it would be better, especially since several of the included points would be, if on their own, under different classifications (e.g. the recreational drugs category, gambling category etc.)

i think you should divide these issues into separate bills, so that those, like me, who are in favor of some points, can legalize those, without having to vote for legalizing recreational drugs, etc.

On this proposal, I'm unsure, because the bit at the end saying "money it not the matter of the state" (I assume that should be "money is...") could be interpreted as a ban on taxation. I do however agree strongly with all the sovereignty over one's body stuff. Perhaps if it was broken down into its individual issues, it would be better, especially since several of the included points would be, if on their own, under different classifications (e.g. the recreational drugs category, gambling category etc.)

Oh god.. lol I'm so sorry about that. I thought I ran through teh whole thing for spelling errors, I guess I missed one. However, as for teh taxation thing. I don't think the intperperetation of the conclusion really matters as much as the actual proposals. I never proposed a repeal of taxation.

And, I coulnd't put the proposal into just "drugs" or "gambling" because it was a little broader, but they all fit under the category of civil rights, so I put it there. Overall, I'd say that's a little technical. I don't really think you should decide not to support it because of that. If you disagree with teh statements themselves, that a different matter though.

More liberal agenda...

I will vote against it in any form.

I'm glad you support my proposal. I did not include abortion because I thought that would be clumping too many different ideas into one proposal.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think that may be the funniest thing I have read...well, in the last few minutes anyway.
You have made a single, all-sweeping bill to legalize gambling, drugs, gay marriage, and suicide (among other things)...
...but you're concerned about avoiding "clumping too many different ideas into one proposal."