NationStates Jolt Archive

We, the sensible people of the United Nations, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nations safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other big-government bedwetters. We hold these truths to be
self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused and are so dim that they want to impose their economic model on everyone else; thus requiring a Bill of No Rights.


ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.


ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.


ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.


ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. There are a lot of charitable people to be found, and will gladly
help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional
couch potatoes.


ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in health care.


ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.


ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.


ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to
fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.


ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but
we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.


ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. You have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by a lot of you in the UN.


Remember: It doesn't mean YOU can't have a terrible economic model. It just means that everyone else doesn't have to have one.

-------------------------------------------------------
Proposal search, my friends. It's a great thing.

We agree that natural rights do not actually exist. We appreciate the sentiment of the proposal (while not entirely agreeing with it). However, this appears to be proposing that the UN engages in strict non-interference in member states's affairs. This may or may not be a good thing; however, there is no way of enforcing this.

I'm afraid we are unlikely to support the proposal. It did make some of us smile though. And that's important.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

Don't worry. According to Midgard X's mathematicians, the cost of enforcing this will be approximately 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 less than paying for all of the UN's free healthcare resolutions. This approximation does not include other right-infringing UN resolutions.

By the way, in case you're wondering 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 what, that's in pounds of gold.

Hey, we have free healthcare and it hasn't crippled us.

The Emperor decries this attempt by the Midgarders to tell his citizens what rights they do not have. That privelige is reserved by the Emperor alone.

Hey, we have free healthcare and it hasn't crippled us.

You have a third-wolrd economy, 100% tax, and below average freedom.

Hey, we have free healthcare and it hasn't crippled us.

You have a third-wolrd economy, 100% tax, and below average freedom.

We, however, have free healthcare, a Very Strong economy and average freedom - which is only so low because of the standing ban on right-wing groups. It has very little to do with provision of public services.

And what does the tax rate have to do with anything? It only reflects the fact that the fruits of workers' labour are redistributed among those workers.

Just a couple more things:

a whole lot of people are confused and are so dim that they want to impose their economic model on everyone else

So it would seem, given that this proposal seeks to impose a failed neoliberal capitalist model on East Hackney's successful socialism:

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. ...ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away

Interesting. We're interpreting this as giving us the freedom to lock away all capitalists and to introduce measures in the UN to compel all other nations to do the same.

TGM: "You have a third-wolrd economy, 100% tax, and below average freedom."

Aren't you a little charmer?

Ecopoeians seem to be happy, judging by recent independent surveys. Hardly crippled.

Speaking of crippling, how's your crime rate? Youth a little disaffected? Oh, dearie...

I may be the least likely to be found springing (or should that be springiong) to Ecopoeia's defence, however, these unwarranted, and unsubstantiated attacks are not clever. Just because the pan-wielder is currently incapacitated, doesn't mean it is open season on the Libs.

I'm sure this proposal holds, in the main, a great attraction for all those who can remember that real life was like this not long ago.

It is spoiled by its attempts to ban social improvements, like health care, and by its liberal 'bleeding heart' clause at the end.

Above all I think it illustrates the gulf between the USA and the rest of the world. To the US public, America, well the bit that flies the stars and stripes, is the world, all the rest of us are an annoyance because we don't conform.

I will support fully articles 1-3,6,7 & 10, although 10 was spoiled by the descent into baiting. The rest - 4,5, 8 & 9 - do not fit under the same umberella, and in my opinion are not desirable

"I may be the least likely to be found springing (or should that be springiong) to Ecopoeia's defence"

I dunno, one little typo and I get crucified...*sniffle*...though I'm surprised that you think you're the least likely. I'm sure there are plenty of nations out there who'd happily feed us to the wolves.

As an aside, we apologise for the somewhat childish response to TGM's criticism of our nation. It was intended to be ironic; however, now it just looks a little foolish. Oh, well.

Desmond 'Coyote' Hawkins
Temporary Speaker for Embarrassing Climbdowns

The Great Nation of Frydonia agree's with the bill 100%. There are too many rights. People should be made aware what rights thay do no have so they won't be a pain in the neck.

We fully support this proposal. It will protect the capitalist nations from the growing socialist nature of the UN while allowing other nations to utilize income redistribution if they so choose. It simply allows all of us to govern ourselves as we see fit instead of attempting to force nations into a single type of government.

We, the Holy church of Psychotropics (and our corporate subsidiaries) fully endorse this proposal. It's time for the people of the world to grow up and deal with life in an honest way and stop trying to use legislation for poorly concieved social experiments that end up in class warfare, runaway taxes, and a choking beurocracy.

Pope Liam the Rich, Pontif of Psychotropics and founder of Shambhala

Rights need to be specifically stated, so that there is no confusion at all. In other words, if we detail the rights as completely as possible, there will be no need for bills such as this.

Vote of Neo Kronos: Nay

In your own country, your rights are stated in your constitution. If you don't have a constitution, or similar document, you have no legal rights.
Outside of your country you have only the rights that the country you are visiting extend to you.

Love the sentiment, but I don't think it belongs in the UN anymore than resolutions outlawing firearms or prescribing free healthcare. These are choices that nations make.

The UN should focus on relations between nations and common goals, not how nations should conduct their internal affairs.

Pres. Rix Wax
Texas Regional UN Sec.

We've done this before.

The Bill of No Rights
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Global Market

Description: In an effort to restore some semblance of sanity to the world, the UN shall pass this BILL OF NO RIGHTS.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This world is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone, not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. There are charitable people to be found, who will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. You have the right to pursue happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by things like the American Bill of Rights.

Votes For: 5045

Votes Against: 8366

Voting Ended: Tue Sep 30 2003

Goobergunchia's position: AGAINST [Vote For] [Withdraw Vote]

If resubmitted, I will vote the same way.

In Rehochipe, citizens do have the right to free healthcare, work, housing, and freedom from the more odious types of offence. Sure, not every citizen of the world automatically has these rights by virtue of being human, but you damn well have them by virtue of being Rehochipean.

It's not sure how this bill is intended, precisely; as forfending future UN bills granting all citizens rights (in which case we intend to peruse past UN resolutions closely to abate our suspicion that it would count as a repeal), or as stripping existing rights from all individual nations. If it's the former, it's merely objectionable; if it's the latter, it's a psychotic infringement of sovereign rights and a blatant attempt to impose socially callous right-wing ideals on nations which we will fight tooth and nail.

PDK Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

The current/recent education proposal is a good example:

I just voted for the Education increase issue. You can't have a first class economy without educated workers. Market Incentives (i.e $$$$$) to reward the top performing competitive schools and teachers will reward and attract a better class of professionals into the education. Pay for RESULTS, not mere physical presence.

However, this is NOT a RIGHT. If mindless, useless, teacher's union drones begin to impede effectiveness ---- the government can pull the plug on their portion (10-15% Maximum) of the funding with minimal warning.

Love the sentiment, but I don't think it belongs in the UN anymore than resolutions outlawing firearms or prescribing free healthcare. These are choices that nations make.

The UN should focus on relations between nations and common goals, not how nations should conduct their internal affairs.

Pres. Rix Wax
Texas Regional UN Sec.

This is precisely my point. The UN somehow believes it does have a right to tell me what my citizens have a right to. This is a proposal to decree that the UN does not have a right to give my citizens a right to anything.

Love the sentiment, but I don't think it belongs in the UN anymore than resolutions outlawing firearms or prescribing free healthcare. These are choices that nations make.

The UN should focus on relations between nations and common goals, not how nations should conduct their internal affairs.

Pres. Rix Wax
Texas Regional UN Sec.

This is precisely my point. The UN somehow believes it does have a right to tell me what my citizens have a right to. This is a proposal to decree that the UN does not have a right to give my citizens a right to anything.

Note what it states at the end. It doesn't mean you can't destroy your nation if you happen to want to. It just means you can't destroy mine.

Approve it!

Approved it!

Thanks! =P

Anyone have anything else to say?

Anyone have anything else to say?

I believe that this would be one of the greatest things passed yet. It gives less control on the UN. And it would elemenante the people in nsations that feel they deserve sympathy.

I believe that this would be one of the greatest things passed yet. It gives less control on the UN. And it would elemenante the people in nsations that feel they deserve sympathy.

OCC:Midgard X,I apologive for the latness of my reply.

You have yet to offer a clarification with regard to my previous question.

To answere your previous question. This bill is to be used as a meer set of guidlines for nations to follow as a strong nation with a grip o n its people I strongly advise you to approve this.

It's not sure how this bill is intended, precisely; as forfending future UN bills granting all citizens rights (in which case we intend to peruse past UN resolutions closely to abate our suspicion that it would count as a repeal), or as stripping existing rights from all individual nations.

PDK Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

I did answer that. I'm not sure how many times I need to answer it before people can read it.

If you'll read the entire proposal, there's a "Remember:" at the end. It states that it does not mean you cannot destroy your own nation if you so wish; it merely means that you cannot destroy mine. If your citizens have a right to anything they want without having to work, that's fine. But you can't give my citizens that "right."

That is an excellant proposal! I hope it passes! 8) :D :mrgreen:

I am verry sad to admit that the proposal did not pass,the stupid game mods got rid of it. Midgard X,you have my sympathy.