NationStates Jolt Archive

Which of these proposals would you approve.

07-02-2004, 19:59
Encyclopaedia and dictionary for all children

To raise the intelligence and educational standards of each nation at the start of each academic year, the child should be issued with the latest version of the Oxford Dictionary and Encyclopaedia (in whichever language they speak). The effects, for obvious reasons, will not be seen until the children leave their places of academic study and find employment. Compared to the amount of money governments of MEDCs spend per year on education this plan will not cost very much. I really do believe this will both be easy to implement and make a noticeable difference. If you say that the dictionary and thesaurus combined will cost around £25 and each child is in school for 12 years then the child will only have to earn £300 extra when they leave school.

Free computer training.

As we all know being able to carry out simple tasks on the computer is crucial in the modern I.T orientated society of today. If you or I couldn’t utilise a P.C I would not be able type this proposal and you couldn’t log onto the internet and read it. I believe that if each nation’s government would provide a twelve week course for each of it’s citizens they would be a lot more able to find employment. This course would not be compulsory and would only cover the essentials of using a computer. Things such as browsing the internet and using word. This course could be taken at any age.

Psychological testing on gun purchasers.

Before being able to purchase and use a gun the person would have to go through a series of Psychological tests to assess whether when in possession of a firearm will not misuse it. This would make sure that mentally unstable people will not be able to easily get hold of a firearm and risk innocent peoples lives. Obviously this law would not be valid in nations where being in possession of a firearm is a criminal act.

Online I.D

I propose that the U.N invents some sort of online identification which would be next to impossible to forge. This would stop underage internet browsers having illegal access to pornography and if they did try to sign up for it they did sign up for it repeatedly then their parents could be notified. This would also apply for adults if they repeatedly go onto illegal sites or sites that instruct their viewers on how to carry out illegal activities. This could let law enforcement agencies monitor potential criminals and send them warnings to deter them.
07-02-2004, 20:09
all of them
07-02-2004, 20:14
None of them.

The fourth contradicts current UN legislation on internet privacy. We simply lock up exit points and limit access to unapproved sites through proprietary software designed by the well-trained software engineers of the Holy Empire of Kokablel. It is fully compatible with other international systems and yet manages to effectively limit illegal usage. It isn't even a matter of law. This is simply the only software internet exploration system available. It's quite reliable and very fast.

The first two are internal political matters, poorly adjudicated and inefficient.

The third is, again, a matter best left to internal politics. Certain nations have different rights concerning firearms. It is not a protected right of civilians and as such there is no need for legislation concerning its legitimate use. We don't allow citizens to own firearms period, so this really isn't an issue now is it?
07-02-2004, 20:19
cheers for your constructive criticism. It really is appreciated. for the Online I.D what if i just do it so underage users cannot access pornography and age restricted sites and scrap the rest of the proposal.
07-02-2004, 20:56
cheers for your constructive criticism. It really is appreciated. for the Online I.D what if i just do it so underage users cannot access pornography and age restricted sites and scrap the rest of the proposal.

Restriction of access to information is not illegal by international law at this time. Making it mandatory legally in your nation seems unecessary, but we speak from the perspective of a fully managed economy. The computer industry is ours, just as are all such things in Kokablel. Where we are not self-sufficient we run all internal distribution and pay fair import prices directly to shippers to facilitate free trade at our borders.

However, in your position, you do not have the benefit of this. We would suggest not proposing the legislation. It is an unecessary invasion of internal political work on the part of the nation. This is something that can be handled well by the nation itself. Different views on moral decency and access available to certain ages of consent are not universal, no matter how we wish them to be. We are strong proponents of national sovereignty within the UN and suggest the same of others. Let nations handle what is realistically their business and the UN handle matters of more international importance.
Rational Self Interest
07-02-2004, 21:00
None of them.

Encyclopaedia and dictionary for all children...
This is properly a matter of domestic policy and not the concern of the UN. Certain nations, depending on their circumstances, may find other solutions more practical, such as providing more libraries or providing internet access to encyclopedias; for some other nations, providing free books would not only be a substantial burden, but a complete waste of money, since much of their population is illiterate and has scant opportunity to enter any career other than that of subsistence farmer, no matter what their education.
For some other nations (such as our own), such a program would be simply absurd. We already provide free education through college and in many cases graduate school; distributing free encyclopedias would be something like handing out slingshots to the Marines.

Free computer training...
Same as above, except moreso.

Psychological testing on gun purchasers...
An unwarranted infringement on individual liberty, and not a concern of the UN. Also a complete waste of time. Psychological testing cannot determine whether a person has criminal intent, and should not be used to deprive a person of his civil rights. The very idea of making liberty contingent upon the state's arbitrary expectation of what a person supposedly might do is, at best, Fascistic.

Online I.D...
Absolutely not! It is none of the UN's business who sees what online. In many nations, including our own, there are no restrictions on internet communication; our own government doesn't spy on our citizens and we don't want the UN spying on us either. The right to free and private communication is the most fundamental of all liberties.