NationStates Jolt Archive

RWP - Right to Work and Possessions

The General Assembly,

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 the U.N. cannot issue decrees stating that any person is obligated to pay to provide food, clothing, or recreation for persons other than themselves;

2. 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, as produced by the U.N. as a body; **

3. Decides that the U.N. cannot issue decrees stating that a person is obligated to pay for a home they will not live in;

4. Decides that the U.N. cannot issue decrees stating that any person is obligated to pay for medical care they will not use;

5. Recognizes that the U.N. cannot legislate contrary to the belief 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. **





* Unfair government practices are defined as regulations that inhibit free-market competititon. No government may make a monopoly and regulate other corporations out of business.

** This means that they are not obligated to pay for other's misfortunes, nor are they obligated to set aside money for the possibility that they may have them (e.g. Social Security).

------------------
Subnotes

1. It has been said that this resolution prohibits taxes. It does not. A nation may still have a 100% tax rate; what this resolution means for the nation is only that it may not spend it on, for example, recreational devices for the masses.

2. As a point of clarification on points three and four; this means that people are not obligated to pay for the homes or medical care of others. If they enter into consensual contractual agreements, they obviously must abide by the contract; but they are not by default obligated to indiscriminately pay for every person's housing and medical care.
---------------------------------------------------------

This is my proposal. If you'd like to approve it, do a proposal search for RWP. Thank you.

The progressive Free Lands of Illaria are horrified by this proposal by Midgard X.

As this proposal essentially bans social welfare, community spending, National spending, national defense, AND any sort of legal culpability (lawsuits are even out, as you're paying for medical care or whatever)

Business is aided, individual rights are aided, but at the cost of social viability, compassion, and any sort of govermental workings.

Government cannot continue to exist as not even defense spending is possible under this proposal.

Essentially, the international perspective of the UN would have to be reduced to a case by case look at every country as its own little microcosm... (ie. no point)

Illaria will oppose this bill in full force unless it can be properly defended.

The Community of Ecopoeia rejects this proposal in its entirety.

It also notes that, in its current form, the bill only relates to approximately 50% of the population. Is it the proposer's intention that the proposal does not apply to women?

"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,"

John Boone
Speaker for Welfare

[quote="Illaria"]The progressive Free Lands of Illaria are horrified by this proposal by Midgard X.

As this proposal essentially bans social welfare, community spending, National spending, national defense, AND any sort of legal culpability (lawsuits are even out, as you're paying for medical care or whatever)

Business is aided, individual rights are aided, but at the cost of social viability, compassion, and any sort of govermental workings.

Government cannot continue to exist as not even defense spending is possible under this proposal.

Essentially, the international perspective of the UN would have to be reduced to a case by case look at every country as its own little microcosm... (ie. no point)

[\quote]


1. It does not oppose defense spending. What it does oppose is explicitly listed. The protection that cannot be paid for is defined as "economic ills." What that entails is listed in its entirety.

2. It does not ban socialism. It only bans UN-enforced socialism. If you have objections to inhibiting the UN from forcing all nations to be one economy type, then no, this proposal isn't for you.

On a side note, you sound dictatorial in nature. You believe society is more important than the individuals it consists of.

Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all. – Nikita Khrushchev

All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person. – Vladimir Lenin

There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. - Benito Mussolini


It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man. - Adolf Hitler

The Community of Ecopoeia rejects this proposal in its entirety.

It also notes that, in its current form, the bill only relates to approximately 50% of the population. Is it the proposer's intention that the proposal does not apply to women?

"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,"


"Man" and "human" mean the same thing traced back to their latin roots. There is no difference.

We disagree. 'Men' does not necessarily equate to 'men and women'. However, this is a moot point and we'll have to agree to disagree.

We still reject your proposal.

The representative from Sophista would respond, but he's become preoccupied with banging his head into a wall after reading this proposal. He wishes to send good tidings, as well as a firm refusal of this legislation.

Sincerely yours,
Udo K. Morris
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs

No way, i'll keep it simple :wink:

The slightly confused but perkily indignant nation of Berkylvania wonders what fresh hell is this?

First, this proposal is confusing in the extreme. However, that does very little to set it apart from a majority of proposals currently under consideration.

Second, the basic premise of this proposal is faulty. What rights of entitlement are you referring to, in specific? Were we all living under feudal governments, perhaps this would make more sense. Additionally, you are making a sweeping generalization in your own language. Even if "some" men are benefiting from the work of others, where is the causality that the working men are "slaves"? It is my duty and responsibility to examine proposals such as these and report back to my country on the inspiration and idiocy of the rest of the world. My superiors profit from the knowledge and I certainly don't feel enslaved. Perhaps I'm just missing your point, so please if you could illustrate further?

Third, we humbly and with complete malice of intent, think that perhaps you should return to your realm war with Albion and Hibernia and stop writing confusing and needlessly loopy proposals.

The Holy Republic of Beaumontia is neither pleased or surprised at the attempt by Midgard X to attempt this dissolution of social welfare.

We quote Illaria:

" Business is aided, individual rights are aided, but at the cost of social viability, compassion, and any sort of govermental workings. "

We firmly agree with this view and shall actively oppose any attempt to erode society and bring about the callous, selfish society Midgard wishes.

If you're confused, ask for clarification on a specific point.




If some men are entitled by right to the work of others, what is it? I believe that the majority would define it as slavery.

If you're confused, ask for clarification on a specific point.
The whole thing is a confusing mishmash of negatives and double negatives, Midgard. We don't need clarification, we need a translator. Even with clarification, it's not something we think we want to support.

Here's how to simplify a response:

"No."

1. I've pointed out that collectivism is a dictator's dream; it is an ideology primarily utilized by dictators to prove that people are not fit to govern themselves.

2. I note with amusement that no one who has replied thus far is a delegate capable of approving a proposal.

3. I note with further amusement that I'm debating certain people from ACA, a region consisting of nations who have absolutely no moral qualms with imposing their beliefs on other people.

How can you not understand what it means? It even has clarification points at the bottom! It is very well written and very specific.

This would be a great proposal to limit the power of the UN, which currently is running rampant passing resolutions which infringe on a nation's sovereignty.

I see no problem with this resolution and can't think of any reason why people would oppose it like they have. It seems that people would still be able to run their countries as they wish, as this resolution applies to the UN and not the individual nation.

Okay, the proposal mightn't be the easiest statement to understand at first glance, but compared to most of the other serious proposals in the UN it's looking pretty good. Plus, the underlying principle is pretty simple.

So many UN resolutions strip hard earned money from business and decent citizens to confer all sorts of benefits on whichever group can best claim to be hard done by. Yet the proposal never lists the costs, just the nice benefits that everyone's going to get. But where's the money coming from - the UN money tree!?

What many of these other proposals are really about, plain and simple, is the expropriation of private property without just compensation. This proposal wants an end to that. I'll be happy if at least we get some recognition in future proposals that benefits don't just appear out of thin air.

Okay, the proposal mightn't be the easiest statement to understand at first glance, but compared to most of the other serious proposals in the UN it's looking pretty good. Plus, the underlying principle is pretty simple.

So many UN resolutions strip hard earned money from business and decent citizens to confer all sorts of benefits on whichever group can best claim to be hard done by. Yet the proposal never lists the costs, just the nice benefits that everyone's going to get. But where's the money coming from - the UN money tree!?

What many of these other proposals are really about, plain and simple, is the expropriation of private property without just compensation. This proposal wants an end to that. I'll be happy if at least we get some recognition in future proposals that benefits don't just appear out of thin air.

Did you not notice how unbalanced the proposal is? It limits the UN's ability to impose the creation of various social welfare systems upon nations that do not wish them.

However it does not prohibit the UN's ability to impose the inverse. The dismantling of social services is not prohobited.

It says that the UN cannot force person's to pay for healthcare they do not use themselves. Essentially meaning all healthcare is to be privately run and funded by the user, denying access to the poor.

It might be fair to prevent the UN from imposing a service that may be too expensive for the country. However it'd be unfair to do that and yet still allow the UN to enforce privatisation of those public services.

My translation:

>> 1. Decides that the U.N. cannot issue decrees stating that any person is obligated to pay to provide food, clothing, or recreation for persons other than themselves; <<

3 and 4 can be merged with 1 to create....

1. The UN may not introduce a law that would result in persons within a nation contributing to a public service others may use, such as libraries, medical care, education, social security. The UN may still impose rules that could prohibit such contributions.

>> 2. 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, as produced by the U.N. as a body; ** <<

2. The UN has the right to determine what business regulations are unfair instead of individual nations, and the UN can enforce deregulation. Public services would have to privatise if deemed a monopoly, regardless of social cost.

>> 5. Recognizes that the U.N. cannot legislate contrary to the belief 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. <<

5. The UN cannot bring in laws that mention state pensions, disability benefits or social security without stating that the people are not to be obliged to pay for them (through income tax).

In summary:

This proposal is a bad idea, designed to be unbalanced and designed to hurt the weak and poor.

If Midgard X's proposal succeeds, causing harm to the poor. The Holy Republic shall take action.

MIDGARD X: "3. I note with further amusement that I'm debating certain people from ACA, a region consisting of nations who have absolutely no moral qualms with imposing their beliefs on other people."

Excuse me? We may be a member of the ACA but it does not follow that we seek to impose our beliefs on others. At any rate, that's astonishing hypocracy on your part.

Point 2. "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, as produced by the U.N. as a body"

"Unfair government practices are defined as regulations that inhibit free-market competititon. No government may make a monopoly and regulate other corporations out of business. "

Outrageous! What is this if not imposing your beliefs on others?

1. I've pointed out that collectivism is a dictator's dream; it is an ideology primarily utilized by dictators to prove that people are not fit to govern themselves.

2. I note with amusement that no one who has replied thus far is a delegate capable of approving a proposal.


1. There is a difference between social concern and dictatorial concern for "society". Blatant individualism to this extreme is beyond libertarianism and is tantamount to anarchy. It's not a question of "people are not fit to govern themselves" but instead a belief that government is brought together to give strength to common purposes, be they wealth, health, or liberty. Society, as a concept, requires at least SOME level of recognition and concern for the existence and necessities of others. This proposal allows people to take what on the short term sounds like the "goods" of society without the "bads"...

For example: Paying the doctor who provides you healthcare while refusing to pay for the tax which supports the local library that doctor used to find the cure for your ailment. By saying that one does not have any compulsion to contribute to common goods, one denies that he or she has ANY need or use for anything provided for by that common good.

Life is not "First one to die rich wins"... :?

2. Illaria is a regional Delegate

The Republic of Ithuania applauds the opponents of this bill for their honesty in expressing their support for abject slavery, then throws its full support to this bill.

The human right that Ithuania defends is just that: Rights

People have the right to join or leave society. Upon entry to society, one is yoked to certain obligatory concerns. This is not slavery, as it is a concious choice to enter "servitude"

The reasoning of the government of Illaria is deeply fallacious. One should not have to abandon what is his in order to prevent its expropriation.

"One should not have to abandon what is his in order to prevent its expropriation."

Things gained in the context of society should be considered in the context of that society. An attempt to consider the gain and use of this same thing under different microscopes is a misuse of scope.

Society is not the basis of wealth--individual achievement is.

Individual achievement in the context of society. Acheivement whereupon societal gain is received is only valuable in society.

Ithuania, the success of a society or an individual cannot be measured on wealth alone. There appears to be this implicit (sometimes explicit) assumption underlying all neoliberal dogma.

In addition, are you seriously suggesting that we are enslaved? That this proposal unshackles us from some terrible bondage? Do you not see the repugnance of such a standpoint given the real slavery endured by many thoroughout history? Then again, I anticipate nothing of worth when I read your postings now; after all, you stated in a separate thread that you were prepared to go to war to enforce the free market.

Your basis for debate seems to be that the individual's rights are paramount. I disagree: I wish to strive for society, a body of people who attend to each other's happiness and imrovement. If a society is happy (and not through brainwashing), it is successful. Maybe this is hopelessly idealistic. However, it is a goal that is worth working towards. Your attitude only generates selfishness and isolation.

Ok, it seems like you people still didn't get it. This only applies to the UN! THE UN!!! Soooooo, you can have all the libraries and healthcare you want as long as your country pays for it. Which makes sense, we can't allow one country to steal from another to pay for their healthcare! The same could be applied on a lower level as well.

The intial proposal makes it clear (as a clarification): "As a point of clarification on points three and four; this means that people are not obligated to pay for the homes or medical care of others. If they enter into consensual contractual agreements, they obviously must abide by the contract; but they are not by default obligated to indiscriminately pay for every person's housing and medical care. "

What about environmental issues? No one is isolated. (barring those few that consider themselves moon colonies and whatnot)

Are you seriously suggesting that taking my money will make me happy, along with the rest of society?

That we all must strive to do poorly, lest the Government take our money?

I'm going to have to tell you that your dream is hopelessly idealistic, because there is no society without the individual. Also, why couldn't it work through brainwashing if society is happy? Isn't that all that matters? Cause that's about the only way to do it.

Seeing as The Holy Smurfs sees no further than the departure of their money from their pocket, Illaria questions why they even bother with governing at all, for surely their governance has nothing to do as even the simple continuation of law and order should be unfunded by this idea.

Government's job isnt to "spread the wealth" but instead to work for a common goal. While hard work and achievement are rewarded, that does not mean that individuals are exempted from societal responsibilities.

There is no society without the individual, yet the individual is not society. The individual is an intrinsic PART of society.

It depends what value you put on money...at any rate, I should have made myself clearer. The rights of the individual do not get suffocated or abrogated in my idealised scenario. It boils down to the idea that we should be thinking not just of ourselves but of others and, I believe, of humanity as a whole. Not to mention other creatures, this planet, etc. Taken to the logical extreme, having the rights of the individual as absolutely paramount is equal to chaos.

Anyway, this all illustrates the difference in our fundamental thinking. Money is a medium of exchange. That's it. It is not something to strive for. And the individual is not alone.

Personal hapiness is something to strive for, and part of that is feeling that you've earned what you've earned.

Also, I do believe that the Government should do pretty much what the US constitution says it should do, and no more. I think that that is a good source to base what it should do. There is only necessity for a few things to be centralized (Police force, Military, Roads), and the things mentioned in that document list them all.

Money is a rate of exchange, correct. And it isn't a goal in itself, it's to get you the things you want to exchange for. Therefore, if you take my money, you are taking my power to exchange for what I want.