NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been banging out a proposal to help increase literacy rates with other nations in my region. I was thinking calling for an increase in literacy rates by 5% every two years for a ten year span. Nations that need financial help could recieve it from the UN, but they will be strictly audited

Don't have a draft or anything yet, and since this would be my first proposal, I'd appreciate any help people would be willing to give me.

Hmmmm....sounds expensive but could be worth the costs once you give us some more details.

I've been banging out a proposal to help increase literacy rates with other nations in my region. I was thinking calling for an increase in literacy rates by 5% every two years for a ten year span. Nations that need financial help could recieve it from the UN, but they will be strictly audited

Don't have a draft or anything yet, and since this would be my first proposal, I'd appreciate any help people would be willing to give me.


UN funds? I don't know how well that'd go over with many of the members, especially those here in the forum. Due to previous resolutions, there is no taxation of UN members allowed, so where these "UN funds" are coming from I can't say. Make sure you iron that out

Also, you might want to consider how the percentage quotas change as a nation's literacy reate apporaches 100%, as certainly 100% is an asymptotal figure.

UN funds? I don't know how well that'd go over with many of the members, especially those here in the forum. Due to previous resolutions, there is no taxation of UN members allowed, so where these "UN funds" are coming from I can't say. Make sure you iron that out

Also, you might want to consider how the percentage quotas change as a nation's literacy reate apporaches 100%, as certainly 100% is an asymptotal figure.

=) First, I'm glad to see I'm not the only ambassador with "math" on his brain. I haven't figured out really how a flat global increase would work. If anything, a literacy "schedule" would have to be created.

As for the resolution on "UN taxation ban", well, my government maintains that the resolution suggests that the UN can't directly tax citizens, but that the UN still can collect membership dues from nations. (Bear in mind that that was the 4th resolution passed, and like many of those early resolutions, it would have been banned from the UN these days for game mechanics issues or not being within the scope of the UN, I'd encourage others to adopt a more liberal attitude when interpeting what these early resolutions mean.)

What might work better is a clause for a strictly voluntary U.N. Literacy Fund, which nations can contribute to and take money out of. I would support this proposal, but with my tax rates the way they are, I am a little leary of being forced to channel more money into something my nation already channels a lot into.

The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

The most important words in this tiny bit of UN legislation are "directly from the citizens." While arguments can be made that it bans all mandatory collection of funds, the langauge most likely suggests that the UN can't tax the individual citizen, as a nation collects a property tax or an income tax.

Since any collection for a UN literacy program would likely not be done by a UN tax man walking door to door, I think it's safe to say that a resolution is allowed to require funding from member states. Even if that isn't implied, you could insert a rider into the resolution making contribution to the literacy fund a requirement for drawing any benefits from it.

This could turn out to be a bit more work than I thought. How about make the literacy rate increases mandatory for countries with rates of less than maybe 70%.

Should probably also set a limit on what countries could take from the literacy fund. Also put a ban on unnecessary military spending or a cap on government pay, that way there's more money to put into education.

Should have a draft up sometime this week.

Should probably also set a limit on what countries could take from the literacy fund. Also put a ban on unnecessary military spending or a cap on government pay, that way there's more money to put into education.

Don't make the proposal do TOO much. What you need to do is keep it as one-dimnsional as possible, streamlined. Is your proposal only asking the question "do you favor raising literacy rates" you get two answers:

yes;
no;

those that say yes, vote yes, those that say no, vote no. Pretty simple.

But if you add a second dimension/question, such as: "Do you favor military spending caps?" you can get 4 possible (think grid):

Yes, Yes;
Yes, no;
no, Yes;
no, no;

Like a punnetts square. Here only the people who answer "yes, yes" will vote for your proposal. That's almost undoubtedly going to be a smaller number then those in the first case.

Think of a google search. say you want to find yourself: one person. if you type just your name, you get many, many pages. So you get more specific: type in your location, put your name in quotation marks, Add your mother's name, Type in your shoe size, And so on. The point is the more specific it is, the fewer there are going to be that match it. You want a large audience to pass this proposal. Lots and lots of web pages. So let the member nations decide things (such as funding and whether or not to place caps on military spending). This also adds the feeling of empowerment to your proposal. This will even further broaden your audience.

Plus it might even risk it bing deleted if you too diversify the implications of your proposal. Observe:






A resolution for Citizenry

A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.

Category: Gambling Legalize/Outlaw: Legalize Proposed by: Cookian States
Description: Let it be affirmed, hereby the United Nations that:

1) In all nations, when you have reached the legal age to declare for military service, you may also gamble, drink, smoke tobacco, or any other things that are lehal for adults to do under the government's laws. If you are old enough to die for your country, then you are old enough to do all of these things.

2)This Resolution does NOT apply to any nations where citizens under 16 can apply for military service.


This is a little too broad. We have separate categories for "Gambling" and "Recreational Drug Use", and this tries to cover both. (It covers drug use implicitly because some nations do allow recreational drugs to be used.) Consequently, it fits in neither.

This needs to be split up into two parts and filed under separate categories.


Limit nuclear weapons

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security Strength: Significant Proposed by: Undecidedterritory
Description: Recognizing that rogue nations and dictatorships cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons....
Knowing that only democracies have popularly elected governments that meet the standards of the civilization....
realizing that nuclear weapons have been used to save lives but have threatened many more in the hands of dictatorships..........
understanding that democracy should be encouraged.........

this United Nations RESOLUTION supports the following:
1) urge all nations to reduce nuclear stock
2) ban the sale of nuclear arms to non-democracies
3) discourage arms sales world wide
4) ban nuclear weapons in non-democracies
5) step up global security efforts to prevent terrorists from obtaining material for a " dirty bomb" or other such device.


Okay, you're doing two things, here, and this needs to be split.

Reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons goes under "Global Disarmament".

Funding measures to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear technology or material goes under "International Security".

Emphasis added.

The most important words in this tiny bit of UN legislation are "directly from the citizens." While arguments can be made that it bans all mandatory collection of funds, the langauge most likely suggests that the UN can't tax the individual citizen, as a nation collects a property tax or an income tax.

Since any collection for a UN literacy program would likely not be done by a UN tax man walking door to door, I think it's safe to say that a resolution is allowed to require funding from member states. Even if that isn't implied, you could insert a rider into the resolution making contribution to the literacy fund a requirement for drawing any benefits from it.

I disagree. Requiring funding from member nations would be, essentially, an U.N. tax on the nation because to get the funds for the U.N. the nation must get the money from the people. Regardless, our nation vehemently opposes any funding requirement as our tax rates have climbed exponentially since joining the U.N. (not that money has not been well-spent) and we would like to control our spending.

Relying on voluntary spending only is a superb way to bankrupt the effectiveness of any resolution. Asking a few people to pick up the tab for legislation enacted by tens of thousands is unfair to the generous nations among us. I would further argue that giving a nation the power to decide how my money is spent without accepting financial risk of their own is in contravention of the main goals of the UN. Voting on a resolution without putting the mechanisms in place to ensure it's success is an empty gesture, akin to saying, "I agree that this problem needs to be fixed, but I want nothing to do with it."

Also, accepting your definition that any monetary contribution to the UN constitutes a tax on the people would mean that voluntarily funding a program is also illegal. The people could bring about legal action against the United Nations at any time tax dollars were spent on an international agenda. Were that the case, we'd have to set up quit a few UN lemonade stands to fight for the causes we've deemed appropriate.

I understand, and even sympathize with your desire to control government spending. Sophista's national budget will soon eclipse four trillion dollars, and continues to sneak up year after year. The burden at this point falls upon the author of the resolution to come up with a funding mechanism that ensures that nations only pay what they're rightly responsible of paying. An environmental bill should require more from nations that are commiting more grevious offenses, et cetera.

I was thinking only put a cap on military spending for nations using the UN program. Hmmm, this gives me an idea....

How about make this program voluntary? Nations that want to boost their literacy rates could have UN certified consultants train teachers how to better teach reading. Once the nation's literacy rate increases to 85%, the consultants leave and let the nation carry on. Nations that have used this program would then be required to send people to act as consultants to other countries. Where the original consultants would come from is a problem tho. We can't force nations to send people, that'd come a little close to violating the trafficking resolution just passed. We could hire them, but with what funds is the problem. Any ideas?

Hmm - what you're trying to achieve is to redirect funds from warfare towards education, yes?
Then why not put have a minimum standard of literacy be required before anyone is allowed to own, use or handle any form of firearm?
That way nations would be required to educate their soldiers, the police have an extra legal tool for jailing violent criminals, and finally young rednecks will actually be motivated to learn how to read.
And, since better educated soldiers tend to be more effective (as they make better reports to their commanders etc) nations which do this won't be at a disadvantage when fighting nations who ignore it.

Mind you, I have no idea how you would turn this into a UN proposal...

A wee hard to enforce, don't you think? How will a gun know it's user can't read? Anyone can learn how to use a gun, you don't have to be able to read. I may just wind up scrapping the military part althogether. My aim was to promote literacy, not world peace. The spending cap was to make the use of UN funds less necessary, peace would just be a side-effect.

Relying on voluntary spending only is a superb way to bankrupt the effectiveness of any resolution. Asking a few people to pick up the tab for legislation enacted by tens of thousands is unfair to the generous nations among us.

I disagree with that.

Take the Space Sciences, as one example (BTW the International Democratic Union has a draft proposal that will soon be submitted addressing this issue). There is a disparity between what socities can afford to pay, though advances through the space sciences are often shared with nations that don't invest in them. My favorite example would be remote sensing. A nation without a satellite system can still make use of global circulation models, which are trained on global climate data.

However, the benefits first go to the nations that invested in these programs, and after they've have their investiment returned, they frequently reinvest in additiona R&D related programs.

The analogy here might be better described via gambling. We are all handed some amount of chips to gamble with. Some of the nations that are lucky enough to win, will reinvest a portion of their winnings into their next bet, increasing their payoff. They took the risk, but also are the first to reap the rewards.

But in the area of Space Sciences, they are certainly having minor positive and negative impacts on other socities. For each satellite that my nation sends into orbit, the potential for another nation to use that same (often easy) orbit might be lost. There also is a risk that a CCSM satellite could fall and hit any number of nations. (I'm speaking hypothetically here, as my nation takes safety issues extremely serious.)

Finally, if the UN were to engage in space sciences related programs, the UN itself would be wise to count upon the expertise of those already in space.

In any event, I think that what you said at times is true, but at other times is not entirely true. Voluntary programs can work, especially when there is some secondary benefit to the nations that contribute to them.

With the UNEC Funding proposal (which Hersfold and I are talking about bringing back to the queue) the incentive to volunteering to provide funds to the UNEC is that your nation will have a say in how those funds are spent. Contributors aren't the only vote, but none-the-less they are given a formal say.

The key in making volutnary programs work is knowing how to advertise secondary benefits without compromising the primary goal. As with some many things, international relations are always about a compromise, and recognizing this is the first step towards reaching agreements and solving complex international problems. :)

The Holy Palatinate wrote:
Hmm - what you're trying to achieve is to redirect funds from warfare towards education, yes?
Then why not put have a minimum standard of literacy be required before anyone is allowed to own, use or handle any form of firearm?

Kal-Garion wrote:
>A wee hard to enforce, don't you think? How will a gun know it's user can't >read? Anyone can learn how to use a gun, you don't have to be able to >read.
Granted that many people will evade the legislation, but frankly, what do you care? Your goal is simply to increase literacy, yes? Someone who is determined to avoid learning to read is simply beyond your help.
A more serious problem would be a nation thumbing their nose at the agreement, which is why I pointed out that educated soldiers tend to be more effective; it's not really worth a nation's effort to fight this, especially as their local rivals are going to be equally affected. Once nations have established basic schooling as part of their military training, your desired outcome occurs.

>I may just wind up scrapping the military part althogether. My aim was to >promote literacy, not world peace. The spending cap was to make the use of >UN funds less necessary, peace would just be a side-effect.
That's fair enough, and nails my suggestion. Of course, you then go back to the 'how do we pay for this?' problem - which is serious as the nations with many illiterates tend to be very poor.

(Oh, my apologies for incoherent nature of my last post - my machine *and* the server were both playing up, so I was spending more time swearing at them than I was at checking my post!)

How about any nation that does not meet a certain level of literacy must spend a certain amount of percent of their GDP or goverment funds on education to teach people to read. You also may want to come up with a definition of what is "literate".

Good luck.

Here's the thing tho, nations with low literacy rates, as just stated, often have smaller budget. They're usually 3rd world countries. It wouldn't be fair to simply say "You have to do this" and just assume the nation can do it. I'm trying to make it so that any nation can boost their literacy rate, not just the ones with money.

A nation in my region has found this information. I's from a real life source, but it vould probably be applied to NS as well.

Quote:
"The authors define modern literacy not as the ability to read and write but as "whether a person is able to understand and employ printed information in daily life, at home, at work and in the community".

It set five levels of literacy:

1. People with very poor skills.
2. People who can deal only with simple material.
3. Roughly the skill level required for successful secondary school completion and college entry.
4 & 5. People who demonstrate command of "higher-order information processing skills".

Said nation then went on to propose that nations be at a certain level within a certain time period. It'd have to be a fairly long time period to still make allowances for poorer nations and those with lower literacy rates. I'd recommend nations with the majority of their population at levels one or two must be at level three by the end of ten years. Government standardized reading tests would be good to determine where the population is, as a UN test would probably fail due to the vast number of different languages in NS.

A suggestion I would have for you guys would be to wait until the passing of my "Defining the UNEC" proposal, then write one up that would add on to it.

Or, I could include some of this in the next submission.

Or, you can do you own thing, I don't really care.

This is a good idea, however, as mentioned above, not all countries can necessarily support a large education budget, so they may need some supplement from the UN. Which of course has no money of it's own (I HATE that setback, tried to fix it, but failed), so everything will have to be a sort of charity doo-hickey like my UNEC proposal has become.

Also, nations whose literacy level is at level 4 may not need any supplement, as they they technically have "Higher-order skills," and as such do not need to improve them much. However, level 3 and below could use some improvement, and therefore apply for UN aid.

Good luck with your idea, and let me know if you ever send anything in.

I think I'm gonna wait until yours gos through before I do anything. My region's all talking about something else now, which is okay, but I'd like to get some ideas into my proposal. My theory is, the more people that are in on writing a proposal, the more will support it.

I think I'm gonna wait until yours gos through before I do anything. My region's all talking about something else now, which is okay, but I'd like to get some ideas into my proposal. My theory is, the more people that are in on writing a proposal, the more will support it.

That is a very good theory! :)

With that in mind, since both proposals have stalled out, I would suggest that we entertain the idea of merging the ideas / proposals.

I think it's best to keep them seperate, otherwise it would look as though the proposal is trying to do too much. Hersfold's proposal is trying to do stuff with the UNEC, I'm trying to increase literacy rates. I'm not trying to give the UNEC a task, so much as give nations themselves a task.

The fund should be used like a charity fund. Also let nations volunteer to be consultants before hiring.

What carrots or sticks does the Nation States UN have on any of its decisions? Very little, except publicity. But publicity does affect public opinion (or why do advertisers spend billions?). So how about the UN publishing an annual ranking -- Most Literate Nation, Biggest Literacy Increase, etc. Also, how about insisting delegates report details of their nation's rating themselves, before the General Assembly (giving them a personal interest in looking good). UN can request (nations to ask for volunteer teachers); it can urge (nations to introduce literacy programs); it can propose (that nations use the program it will prepare and distribute, free of charge, using savings made by cutting unnecessary bureaucratic paper use); it can share (buildings, computers, lighting, communication).
In short (and trying hard not to sound like Goody Two-Shoes), the UN can hang about Setting a Good Example. Which means that a resolution on the subject could be totally idealistic, just setting out (a) literacy is good, because ... and (b) ways to improve it are ... . And, since it's virtually a Motherhood resolution, it might get passed -- a foot in the door!