NationStates Jolt Archive

My apologies for not writing this proposal in the fashion outlined in these forums, I probably should have looked here first. Nevertheless, I invite everyone to debate the proposal here as well.
It holds as a basic tenant, that ethical issues will always count for more than non-ethical ones. By the latter, this in particular refers to economic issues for no other reason than to generate wealth. The welfare of even one human being, then, takes precedence over all other economic issues.

Now, if an economy collapses, so usually does its welfare program (if it has one). The laws of supply and demand govern market economics. In a balanced market, then, half the population can afford the product or service, and the other half cannot. Clearly this is ehtically an untenable position to take if this product happens to be food.

Most capitalist governments around the world will regulate the food industry to a certain degree, in many countries this only takes the form of reducing GST on unprocessed food items.

This is not enough, nor is it just food that an individual needs to survive.

In the proposal, hopefully, I have outlined this problem and offered a solution.

Well-written proposal. Worth consideration. Morally important? Plenty of people would say so. I'd disagree, after a fashion.

In a balanced market, then, half the population can afford the product or service, and the other half cannot

Incorrect. Market equilibrium is established when the quantities demanded and supplied are equal at a particular price. Surplusses generally create downward pressure on price, decreasing supply and increasing demand to approach equilibrium; shortages generally create upward pressure on price, increasing supply and decreasing demand to approach equilibrium.

---

Link to proposal: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Egalitarian

Text of proposal:

The Egalitarian Act

Category: Social Justice; A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Polyamoralia in Space


Description: Racism, sexism, and all other forms of bias are dependant upon judging or treating an individual differently based purely upon nothing more than an arbitrary unrelated matter to an issue eg. the colour of your skin.

The Egalitarian Act is a proposal to institute in all UN member nations a constitutional right for ALL people to be treated EQUALLY regardless of sex, race, religion or socio-economic status. ALL people will have EQUAL access to FOOD, SHELTER, EDUCATION, MEDICAL SERVICES and any other AMENITIES (eg. electricity, sanitation). Above all, ALL people will have an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to succeed in life and make a meaningful contribution to the well-being of society in their chosen fields of interests.

It is proposed then, that the above, herein referred to as SERVICES of SOCIAL UTILITARIAN value cannot therefore be measured by monetary value alone, and that therefore market economics is incapable of allocating these services equally and in a justifiably ethical manner. The evidence for the failure of the current economic system lies in the fact that the world produces enough food to feed itself three times over, and yet one-third of the entire world's population is starving to death.
Services of Social Utilitarian value will be removed from the current economic market system (effectively removing price) and that these resources then be researched, developed, produced, manufactured and distributed according to an egalitarian justice system which takes precedence over all other economic arguments which carry zero ethical weight. The premise here is that people count for more than the dollar and that it is the role of government to ensure the well being of all people.


Approvals: 1 (Polyamoralia in Space)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 152 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Apr 27 2004

---

ALL people will have EQUAL access to FOOD, SHELTER, EDUCATION, MEDICAL SERVICES

Why should I work when the government will give me free access to all the food, shelter, and medical services I need to survive? Eh? I'd like to thank you for being willing to do all that hard work for the rest of your life so you can feed and house my family -- it's really quite generous of you, and even more so for you to submit a UN proposal to force your future generations to continue this noble work to feed and clothe my future generations.

All people will have equal access to food, eh? Are we then arguing that a small child and a growing teenager require the same amounts of food? Are you now also arguing that those who have earned more money through legal channels do not then have the right to spend that money as they choose (ie: for some nice steak)? Shouldn't peope with less money be allowed to highly prioritize food and get that steak if they so choose?

Equal access to shelter? Again, shouldn't people who work harder and earn more money have the right to purchase nicer homes and things to put in them? If they can't spend their money on things they want, why should they bother to earn it? On another note, will all homes look the same? Because, as I see it, any differentiation in home design would violate the equality of shelter. Shouldn't people be able to spend money on their houses if they want to?

Equal access to education? Uh-huh. An auto mechanic doesn't need to know how to conduct an open heart surgery -- he needs to know how to fix a leaking radiator. And again, shouldn't parents be allowed to send their children to schools of their choosing?

Equal access to medicine? Well, I guess you're right. That nice, healthy, football star needs an emergency room visit just as much as that poor senior citizen over there in a wheelchair who just got hit by a car, is losing blood, and has gone into cardiac arrest. All in the name of equality.

The evidence for the failure of the current economic system lies in the fact that the world produces enough food to feed itself three times over, and yet one-third of the entire world's population is starving to death.

Those who do their research a little deeper than the superficial level tend to find that the vast majority of starving peoples do not come from areas with moderately regulated free market economies. Totalitarian dictatorships and command econonomies (a command economy is essentially what you are attempting to set up) have caused most all famines in human history.

You can't just expect things to be produced. Economics is not the stud of black magic and the realm of witch doctors. If you establish a system where producers have no way to earn a livelihood or make a profit, you'll find that, surprise surprise, there won't be producers in your area for very much longer.

The stress was on access, not actually having it. Things like

All people will have equal access to food, eh? Are we then arguing that a small child and a growing teenager require the same amounts of food?

miss the point somewhat: just because you have access to something doesn't mean you get it. Similarly, having equal access to housing might mean that if you want a house equivalent to your neighbour's, you have to put in an equivalent amount of work for it (rather than, say, inheriting the cash for it or getting lucky on the stock market or the ponies).

That said, while we're behind this sort of economic policy we recognise that many are not, and further are aware that this proposal contains more rhetoric than implementation.

I very much like this idea, and admire the thought and intelligence that has obviously been put into it, however I will withhold my approval from this version in the hope that the proposal can be re-written slightly and re-submitted.

First, there should be a clarification on the issue of access. Personally, I would prefer something like a guaranteed minimum. Therefore, nobody will starve, and everyone has somewhere to live, but it will still be possible to purchase more food and a bigger house.

Second, this could be misinterpreted: "a constitutional right for ALL people to be treated EQUALLY regardless of sex, race, religion or socio-economic status." I think that, to please those who would nitpick, every statement must be clarified in such a controversial proposal.

Third, the strength should be "strong", since what you are proposing is effectively a total overhaul in the cases of some countries.

Fourth, I think "amenities" must be clearly defined.

Fifth, the format popularised in Sophista's sticky does help organisation, and might go some way to separating out and strengthening the actual actions.

I hope that Polyamoralia in Space considers my suggestions, and I wish them the best of luck with passing a revised version.

Thanks for the feedback. Interesting points have been made. If this proposal doesn't make it through, I will indeed be revising and trying it again ;-)

While ensuring everyone has food is a good idea, it will never work unless you abolish capitalism and government and introduce workers' self-management.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

First, there should be a clarification on the issue of access. Personally, I would prefer something like a guaranteed minimum. Therefore, nobody will starve, and everyone has somewhere to live, but it will still be possible to purchase more food and a bigger house.

The Minimum Wage proposal is saying that, and is proposing a guaranteed minimum. This could be incorporated in this proposal, if it fails to reach quorum and can get voted on.

Second, this could be misinterpreted: "a constitutional right for ALL people to be treated EQUALLY regardless of sex, race, religion or socio-economic status." I think that, to please those who would nitpick, every statement must be clarified in such a controversial proposal.

Especially the socio-economic status, as that might imply that regardless of how much money you have, you should be able to live in a huge mansion like the rich people. After all, you have to be treated equally.

Fourth, I think "amenities" must be clearly defined.

Personally, I would go for only the 4 "basic needs": food, shelter, education and healthcare.

Fifth, the format popularised in Sophista's sticky does help organisation, and might go some way to separating out and strengthening the actual actions.

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda encourages that by only approving proposals formatted in that format. They are easier to read and better to comment on, because it's clearer why the resolution has to be implemented and what the consequences are.