NationStates Jolt Archive

The nation of Gortalusk respectfully acknowledges the needs of people to be literate and educated.

However, we, as a libertarian state, do not find it prompt to force the governments of member nations to provide that education. It is the firm belief of the government of Gortalusk that education is a responsibility of private interests. As such, there is no established national education system. Legislation has, and will, ensure the standards of this education.

Until such a time as the Initiative is modified, the delegation from Gortalusk must respectfully vote against this proposal. It defies the economic and social principles of our libertarian society.

The representative of Aeruillin would like to respectfully point out that, by that rationale, any resolution voted on by the United Nations could be argued against. Whether it be a resolution forbidding citizens to stand on one leg, or it be a resolution to ensure democracy.

In the preamble of the Nation States United Nations, its purpose is clearly stated as follows.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass.

However independent you would like your nation to be, there is no sense in opposing new resolutions just because you don't want them to affect you. If you want the UN to stop influencing your government, well, the membership is not mandatory.

Let it be known, that the government of Gortalusk will respectfully, promptly, and courteously follow and affect all decisions of the United Nations.

The delegation would like to point out that, although Gortalusk believes in minimalistic government, we wish peace and prosperity to all nations. Our views represent an idealogically different set from those established. We do not deny the necessity of basic services like education, we only assert the responsibility of private interests to provide them. We believe that these interests can better meet the needs of the people. The government is in place to insure that these interests do not violate the rights of the people.

We wish, wholeheartedly, to be a contributing and obiding member of international politics. We apologize for any miscommunication that may have been affected.

Bluntly, as the esteemed leader of Aeruillin says, membership of the United nations is not mandatory. I would also like to inquire how you could possibly classify this as a non-libertarian initiative. Education is the first step towards freedom; all the dictatorships suppress knowledge. I direct you to the Chinese "cultural revolution".

The delegation of Gortalusk, in response to historical references, would like to indicate the leftist bias heavily present in the educational system of the United States of America.

In the same respect as the government has no right, domain, or even authority to deny education and knowledge to anyone, it is equally so that education not be affected by politics. This guarantees an equitable state of education for all people.

I would like to say, as an aside, that I can understand the desire for governmental education. Historically, education has always been two-sided: those with the money get the better education. Government has not established any difference in this, at least not in the United States. Whether or not private education can meet this goal, I do not know. I would, however, like to find out.

The delegation of Gortalusk will make no further comments for at least the next seven hours, and apologizes thusly. It must participate in a public education system. :)

Is this the official thread for debate on the resolution currently at vote or does anyone plan to publish the full proposal in a seperate thread for discussion?

CC

The Protectorate of Arch Nemesis advises nations , to vote against this resolution.

First of all we note that:

“5.Adults who lack the ability to read and write (or are verifiably deficient at reading and writing) are given the opportunity to become literate (or more “adequately” literate) without fee or stipulation”

Imagine some terrorists enter your country from abroad, however they cannot speak the national language very well.
This law would be educating them so that their position would be enhanced in society and their terrorist group could receive more funding FOR FREE.

On top of that, it also states that:

"3.Children with a deficiency in literacy of any kind have at their disposal increased efforts and attention (with respect to a non-deficient child) of well-trained educators, proportional to the severity of the deficiency"

Meaning that the top students who would most benefit from excellent education won't be able to get it. The reasoning behind this is that the top educators would be focussing their efforts on children with deficiencies in learning and literature.

Due to these reasons, we have been obliged to vote against the resolution. We caution nations that should this law get passed, we ourselves would be endangering our population to terrorist actions, and we would lower the maximum IQ of our countries. The damage economically and scientifically would be too great.

Imagine some terrorists enter your country from abroad,

Excuse me for chuckling at this point. Ah yes, those tricksy terraists. It always boils down to those, doesn't it? ;) Don't educate any adults, they might be terrorists. On that note, don't educated children either, they might start a rebellion later on.

If the terrorists need to use our free education system to become literate, there's little to fear.

Greater Merchantville recognizes and agrees with the aspects of the resoultion that have been pointed out by the representative from the Protectorate of Arch Nemesis. However, the Empire also asserts that the Resolution itself supports the adaptation of portions of the legislation to more appropriately apply to the individual literacy needs of the member nations.

To wit, the Empire of Greater Merchantville would adapt point 3 to ensure that allocation of resources would be based on the potential benefit to those being educated. Those with extreme deficiencies that inhibit the ability to learn will be supported with resources, but it will not be done to the detriment of those without such deficiencies.

As to point 5, the Empire recognizes that there is inherent risk in a free society. It is the price of freedom. Absolutism, in most cases, is a dangerous course of action. Refusing to promote education for fear that a terrorist may get an education is no different than closing national borders for fear of terrorist infiltration or monitoring of all forms of communication (telephone, electronic mail, fedral postal system, etc) because terrorists do, in fact, communicate with each other.

A free society necessitates the acceptance that some negative elements will exist within that society and that those elements will benefit from the privledges instituted by the society. There will be foreign elements, some negative and some positive, and there will be domestic elements that each benefit and sometimes abuse those privledges. A nation cannot remove the privledges of a free society for fear of abuse without fundamentally removing the freedom of that society.

The Empire of Greater Merchantville casts its vote in favor of this legislation.

Indeed, and by inadvertently educating these ‘terrorists’ heavens forbid they should learn something about themselves and their intended target. If anything, it is more likely to stop terrorism, than harbour it.

The government of Telidia is very keen to educate each and every member of our society to the highest level possible. Education is one of the key foundation stones to building productive, active and freethinking citizens.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Esteemed Members,

All governance and treaties are contractual by their nature. This means that all Parties are bound to the clauses and amendments of those contracts, properly agreed upon, and all of the obligations therein irrespective of their own positions if in the contrary. The alternative is to terminate their participation.

Therefore, I cannot be swayed by the arguments of our fellows from Gortalusk. If a libertarian government enters into a contractual relationship with other governments, and those governments agree to enact certain programs in their respective nations, then how can one member argue that a particular program should not be approved because no nation should be forced to enact certain programs -- properly agreed upon?

Gortalusk having stipulated the worthiness of the literacy program itself, I then see no compelling reason why this initiative should not be passed.

Respectfully,
The Republic of Coxia

In the name of the republic of the social republicans,
I would wish to underline the single point which poses problem to us:

"ENOURAGES EQUALLY non-governmental groups who, through charitable funds and donations and local literacy initiatives, also work to spread literacy amongst nations around the world"

It would be possible to a religious group to benefit from its statute of non-governmental organization, and under cover of fight against the illetrism, to diffuse on children its religion. Our republic is a secular country and will not accept that our children be influenced religiously. Unless being reassured on this question, we will vote against.

Sorry for our bad english, we speak french. ;)

Respectfully,
The Republic of Social Republicans.

Sorry for our bad english, we speak french.
Nothng to worry about, though 'illetrism' is a creative way of spelling it. :)

Your point is a new aspect which I had not considered before. I know the author was well-intentioned when including the endorsement and funding of non-governmental organizations - it takes a considerable burden off state finances. Yet, the point remains: Allowing non-government groups a free reign of education is risky.

Still, if we enact the same policy toward these groups as we do towards other charitable groups in our nations, we can hardly go wrong. Regular supervision of these groups will likely rule out any malpractice. Most children answer to parents, and at least some parents will notice when their child is being brainwashed. If, at the least sign of political/religious education the government inquires into the exact education plans and is able to sit in such lessons unannounced, we are much safer.

All things considered, charities are already being trusted with funds by the government. The system works, and those groups that abuse it are smoked out. I see little problem with this part, as long as individual nations maintain a reasonable policy for making sure the charity institutions do what they say they do.

Esteemed Members,

The Republic of Social Republicans state,

It would be possible to a religious group to benefit from its statute of non-governmental organization, and under cover of fight against the illetrism, to diffuse on children its religion. Our republic is a secular country and will not accept that our children be influenced religiously. Unless being reassured on this question, we will vote against.

The initiative at bar, as we read it, leaves the implementation of this program to the individual member nation and its regulatory apparatus. Although we feel that non-governmental groups providing educational alternatives will create more accountability from the state to the people, we do not see how the state cannot create a secular framework within which non-governmental groups must operate when providing an educational alternative -- providing the member nation even allows for the participation of non-governmental groups.

The only mandated aspects of the initiative are the five points enumerated. The "encouragement" clauses are not mandatory.

Respectfully,
The Republic of Coxia

Thanks for Aeruillin and Coaxia to reassured us.

From the moment when, in practice of the resolution, the States are free to be ensured of the good respect of the national laws by the non-governmental organizations, notably concerning the respect of the laicity of education, we can only support this progessist text.

We will vote for it.

Respectfully,
The Republic of Social Republicans.

Galveston Bay considers education a local matter primarily, a regional (as in the provencial or state level) matter in some respects, and to a very limited extent a national issue.

We do not consider it an international issue in any respect.

In addition, this resolution essentially does exactly what the Axis of Evil Resolution did (that we just repealed). It forces nations to spend a UN specified portion of their budgets, GDP and resources as the UN wishes, which may or may not suit the needs or requirements of the UN member nations themselves.

Please vote no on this.

the delegation of the Nomadic Peoples of New York Jet Fanatics hereby recommends the defeat of the proposal at hand on account of its being unjust to humanity. The delegation of the Nomadic Peoples of New York Jets Fanatics strongly believes that the suggestions presented by the proposal at hand are not beneficial to society due to the proposial's suggestion that all people be given an governmentally-supplied education at no charge. while the suggestion is a very good one, and one which the Nomadic Peoples of New York Jet Fanatics will unquestioningly comply with, and in fact already have implemented, the delegation of the Nomadic Peoples of New York Jet Fanatics must question the necessity of such a proposal to require that all citizens of all United Nations Member Nations be required to enroll in such an education. The delegation of the Nomadic Peoples of New York Jet Fanatics emphasizes that they believe such a requirement is unjust, and that said delegation believes firmly that those that wish to remain illiterate for any reason be allowed to do so unless such a proposition would compromise the environmental regulations of the nation.

I am unsure whether I will support this resolution or not. But I do note that the soveriegnty argument is perfectly appropiate- some things are UN matters and others aren't. Just because membership is voluntary does not mean that some resolutions may be innapropiate. Joining should not require you give up soveriegnty.

I support this act as an idea, but i'm concerned that no mention of mathematics is made. Yes, literacy is important, but mathematics is equally important. I will vote no to this Resolution until a change is made to this.

Esteemed Members,

I understand your hesitations with respect to the sovereignty issue. Allow us an attempt to alleviate your concerns.

We would assert that an agreement by the members is not per se an abdication of sovereignty. If that were the case then every agreement would be an abdication of sovereignty. Rather, an agreement to do some thing, and doing that thing even if you participate but were against the agreement in the minority, is an expression of your sovereignty and not the reverse.

We all come to the table as equal members. We all field our own cyber armies and collect our cyber taxes. Our participation, even in the minority, is voluntary and can be terminated at will at any time.

The citizens of a state do not abdicate their sovereignty even though they annoint the state with certain sovereign powers to fulfill those obligations desired by the citizens. How much less here then is there an abdication of sovereignty when the U.N. is annointed with no sovereign powers to enforce its own resolutions?

We readily admit that in a pure Balance-of-Power Paradigm all states would presumably seek to enhance the education of their citizens so that each state may interact or compete with the others more effectively. The advantage to our agreement is that it at least symbolically sets the stage for cooperation, rather than competition, toward the same ends.

If we maintain dialogue and cooperation, and try to make the Collective-Security Paradigm work, the groundwork of smaller resolutions such as this one will pave the way toward more successful resolutions where the circumstances are more dire.

Therefore, we entreat you to ASSERT your sovereignty by supporting this resolution.

Respectfully,
The Republic of Coxia

2.Member nations are to take measures to increase both the skills of teachers of young children and the profitability of careers in teaching: such has tax cuts for educators, grants for teaching organizations, and loans to aspiring or studying teachers;
So as we read this 'resolution' (we use that term loosely), we am required to give all kinds of benifits and tax breaks to teachers and people who claim to aspire to be teachers. What gives any body outside my borders the right to determine who we give(or don't give) special consideration to?

3.Children with a deficiency in literacy of any kind have at their disposal increased efforts and attention (with respect to a non-deficient child) of well-trained educators, proportional to the severity of the deficiency;
Who gets to decide what is deficient! There are people born mentally deficient that deserve all the help they want/need. There are people just born dumb as a rock, and they can ask for help if they choose to. Then there are people who are just lazy, and why should we spend the money and waste the effort to try and teach these people?

With all due respect to those that support this resolution, we have to vote
NO!

The nation of Shunryo agrees that the main bone of contention is:

3.Children with a deficiency in literacy of any kind have at their disposal increased efforts and attention (with respect to a non-deficient child) of well-trained educators, proportional to the severity of the deficiency;

What of those who - for their own reasons - do not wish to learn? Perhaps an additional clause about freedom to leave educational establishments, and thus suffering the consequences of their own inaction.

After all, every nation *does* need that certain class of people who are best suited for drudge-work.

The nation of Shunryo agrees with all other aspects of the proposed resolution, and will abstain from voting until the contended issue is amended.

The Most Serene Republic of Groovy Tuesdays wishes to reaffirm it's belief that excellence in education is not the privelege of some, but the right of all. As a nation, however, we have concerns regarding the debate over the "Reformed Literacy Iniative",

1-) It is deeply distressing to our Most Serene Republic that education is considered of greater value to some than others. Those at the upper end of the IQ scale do not, and in fact, cannot, *benefit* more from an education that those at the bottom end, and vice-versa. Education can expand the mind, open new horizons, free the soul and improve the quality of life for anyone - regardless of who they may be.

2-) Our Most Serene Republic believes it is up to the member state to determine how resources are allocated. We believe it self evident that the Resolution at hand establishes principles, and the member states decide how best to achieve these. Groovy Tuesdays is not certain how sovereignty is threatened by this resolution.

3-) Education can be delivered, but learning is a process of engagement. Groovy Tuesdays believes that any citizen of our Republic should have the right to opt out of the educational system, if they so desire. As the resolution appears not to alter the basic human right to decide ones own fate, Groovy Tuesdays is not certain how individual rights are threatened by this resolution.

We, the Most Serene Republic of Groovy Tuesdays, say this with great respect for member states whose beliefs differ from our own. We believe this resolution to be so important, however, that we encourage all member states to vote "YES".

The Protectorate of Arch Nemesis concedes that indeed you either have freedom for everyone, or for no-one because you just can't mix the two appropriately. However, the fact stands that this is a UN resolution, and in UN resolutions there is no amount of "to an extent". You are breaking a law if you don't abide every article written within, that is the truth.

We realise that our UN membership is strictly voluntary, indeed this is the 2nd time we have become part of the UN. Howvere we also recognise that UN commitment is not just "a little bit of this, but go easy on the ban on nuclear weapons with me", it is 100% commitment (We recognise the irony of 100% commitment when this is our 2nd time as part of the UN, but we have adopted all of their laws). So if you have a big problem with an article, even if the rest sound okay, don't vote for it. I'd say major economic impact and general intelligence of the country going down the drain would be "two big problems".

We have decided to argue on a more global scale. What will happen when this law is passed globally, is that we would find our work as law enforcers, and more so "Protectors", become extremely difficult for the reasons we outlined on page one.

And as much as we would like to believe that terrorists who involved themselves in public education would give up their complete religious beliefs and causes that they have been brought up with and have lived their entire life with, it simply does not happen. Re-education is an idea fit for a perfect society that currently does not exist. It blatantly fails to work (I have written a 600 word essay on the topic, don't argue with me).

Really be sure that everything is okay with it before you vote for a UN resolution. btw vote 1 anything other than Bush.

btw, is it just me, or do people just vote for resolutions just because they may sound good on the surface and no-one cares enough to bother to think about the consequences of the law proposed? Indeed, people voted the "Axis" propsition in, and than voted it out whilst barely caring how it would affect them. We, who are the intelligent people, advise other such nations to think about what could go wrong before you pass a resolution. Remember you only get one side of the argument from the person who proposed the treaty. You have to go the rest of the way.

VOTE NO ON THIS RESOLUTION.

The legislation offices of Zeldyr would like to make this note about the UN resolution at vote:

While it is a good idea in practice, it is not the government's responsabliity to provide welfare, or education, or, for that matter, medical care. It is therefore, unreasonabe to ask government to provide literacy education for it's citiczens. It, however does place an added tax burden on those people who do not need such education.

Unfortunately, people have come ot expect these services. I propose that you can achieve a better effect by simply privitizing all public education. That would (1) reduce the tax burden on people and allow them to choose the kind of education that they recieve, (2) improve the aforementioned education from simple market competition, (3) Improve prices for education by the market competition.

Unfortunately, we do not have enough endorsements to enact such a proposal. I'll have to contact my regional deligate concerning that

The United Nations

RECALLS “UN Educational Committee” implemented April 9th, 2004 and “Free Education” implemented August 9th, 2003;

NOTES the paramount importance of literacy and communication skills for nations’ citizens in learning improving and bettering their lives;

IDENTIFIES member nations as responsible for the literacy and education of their respective citizens;

DECLARES, as a right for all, the opportunity to learn how to read and write in the official language(s) of a nation and extend this right to all citizens with in member nations;

ENACTS the following to ensure this right be maintained:

1.Literacy, and the attainment thereof, is established as the critical priority in the secular education granted by member nations, in accordance with “free education”, to its citizens;

2.Member nations are to take measures to increase both the skills of teachers of young children and the profitability of careers in teaching: such has tax cuts for educators, grants for teaching organizations, and loans to aspiring or studying teachers;

3.Children with a deficiency in literacy of any kind have at their disposal increased efforts and attention (with respect to a non-deficient child) of well-trained educators, proportional to the severity of the deficiency;

4.Education in literacy and in the norms of communication (an expanding vocabulary, syntax, writing conventions) of the official language(s) shall begin with the earliest stage of secular schooling granted by a member nation possible, and shall continue to be a substantial factor in students’ education throughout their education;

5.Adults who lack the ability to read and write (or are verifiably deficient at reading and writing) are given the opportunity to become literate (or more “adequately” literate) without fee or stipulation;

ENCOURAGES member nations to enact progressive reforms in their respective education systems, beyond the measures above, to enhance the general quality of education and the number of students who are successfully taught to read and write in the official language(s) of that member nation;

ENOURAGES EQUALLY non-governmental groups who, through charitable funds and donations and local literacy initiatives, also work to spread literacy amongst nations around the world;

SUPPORTS, through the good faith of member nations, the aspirations of member nations to increase literacy, and RESPECTS the right of nations to adapt small portions or this legislation to more appropriately apply to their individual literacy situations.

I have voted in favor of this resolution.

As evidenced by my own resolution, the above mentioned "UN Educational Committee", Resolution #54, my nation feels that a government should fund educational programs as much as possible. A good education is not only beneficial to one's own mental health, but the nation's civil and political freedoms, and it's entire economy - the three things our nations are most ranked by. When a person is literate, they are able to learn more, easier, and better enrich themselves. When a nation's society is literate, they are able to express themselves better, and employ themselves in more specialized, skilled lines of work, thus earning them more money, which is then spent to the other skilled laborers, which is the entire basis of a modern economy. Without a literate nation, your society loses the respect of other nations more advanced, your citizens will suffer and your nation will be poor.

For those of you out there who believe that the UN is seeking to destroy national sovereignty, this is where PC's genius really stands out. I ask you to read the last paragraph of this resolution:

SUPPORTS, through the good faith of member nations, the aspirations of member nations to increase literacy, and RESPECTS the right of nations to adapt small portions or this legislation to more appropriately apply to their individual literacy situations.

See that section in bold? PC has left this resolution open for adaption. Those educationally-minded nations like my own can interpret this to boost funding in education by a large amount - those others can simply boost it enough to say that they are complying. This is, in it's design, a "perfect" resolution. It allows enough leeway to appease everyone, yet still sets forth a single goal that all nations are required to attain. I applaud this document, and it's author.

Please, I ask all UN members to vote FOR this resolution. Support your own nation's future by doing so, and the minds of your citizens.

Good night, and Live Long and Prosper.

The United Federation of Hersfold
UN Member
Honorary Founder, Part123
Author, UN Resolution #54, "UN Educational Committee"

The Conseilin of Enn has signalled its intent to support this resolution. We believe that education should be of paramount importance to any nation. We also support the arguments by Hersford relating to national sovereignty.

Arch Nemesis: The UN body never voted for the Axis of Evil resolution. That was a test conducted by Max Barry in order to ensure that the resolution mechanics were working. You could well say that the repeal of that resolution was a test by the UN body to ensure that the repeal mechanics were working.

Reformed Literacy Initiative
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description:
The United Nations

RECALLS “UN Educational Committee” implemented April 9th, 2004 and “Free Education” implemented August 9th, 2003;

NOTES the paramount importance of literacy and communication skills for nations’ citizens in learning improving and bettering their lives;

IDENTIFIES member nations as responsible for the literacy and education of their respective citizens;

DECLARES, as a right for all, the opportunity to learn how to read and write in the official language(s) of a nation and extend this right to all citizens with in member nations;

ENACTS the following to ensure this right be maintained:

1.Literacy, and the attainment thereof, is established as the critical priority in the secular education granted by member nations, in accordance with “free education”, to its citizens;

2.Member nations are to take measures to increase both the skills of teachers of young children and the profitability of careers in teaching: such has tax cuts for educators, grants for teaching organizations, and loans to aspiring or studying teachers;

3.Children with a deficiency in literacy of any kind have at their disposal increased efforts and attention (with respect to a non-deficient child) of well-trained educators, proportional to the severity of the deficiency;

4.Education in literacy and in the norms of communication (an expanding vocabulary, syntax, writing conventions) of the official language(s) shall begin with the earliest stage of secular schooling granted by a member nation possible, and shall continue to be a substantial factor in students’ education throughout their education;

5.Adults who lack the ability to read and write (or are verifiably deficient at reading and writing) are given the opportunity to become literate (or more “adequately” literate) without fee or stipulation;

ENCOURAGES member nations to enact progressive reforms in their respective education systems, beyond the measures above, to enhance the general quality of education and the number of students who are successfully taught to read and write in the official language(s) of that member nation;

ENOURAGES EQUALLY non-governmental groups who, through charitable funds and donations and local literacy initiatives, also work to spread literacy amongst nations around the world;

SUPPORTS, through the good faith of member nations, the aspirations of member nations to increase literacy, and RESPECTS the right of nations to adapt small portions or this legislation to more appropriately apply to their individual literacy situations.

Votes For: 3,762
Votes Against: 668
Voting Ends: Tue Nov 2 2004

This resolution is a text book example of social justice. Specifically look at the preamble clauses:


IDENTIFIES member nations as responsible for the literacy and education of their respective citizens;

DECLARES, as a right for all, the opportunity to learn how to read and write in the official language(s) of a nation and extend this right to all citizens with in member nations;

The point behind governments, be they liberal, conservative, liberatarian, authoritarian, whatever else, is that a social contract exists between the people and those who manage or rule. As has been argued by Jean Jacques Rousseau one of the earliest and most basic forms of government is the simple family. In a family, an older and wiser generation frequently makes decisions for the younger members of the family ... but in time the family will require the ability to make independent decisions of the younger generation. In effect both generations need to invest in one another.

In the case of education, specifically literacy, sustainability in a government comes from having a large pool of citizens who can one day lead ... it stands to reason that the larger this pool of educated citizens, the better off the existing nation will be when the torch of leadership is passed on.

Though this resolution is about equal rights to literacy, and should be commended for that alone, my government again feels that the works of Rousseau would suggest that there is in fact a social contract, moral obligation, that beyond basic human rights, but in building a sustainable government that also would justify measures taken to improve literacy.

Many of our nations already enjoy very large and efficient educational programs. The citizens of all of the city states of Mikitivity enjoy excellent educational opportunities. So much that the finicial impact of this resolution is negligible to the Confederated City States, but my government actually sees the wisdom behind reasserting that all citizens should have the equal opportunity towards literacy, and the CCSM has cast its vote IN FAVOUR of this resolution.

How about instead of making 'teachers' undergo more training, train *everyone* to be a teacher. We need to recognise that we are *all* teachers, independent of age or life experience. So, teach everyone to be a teacher... and then we can all learn from each other. It would strengthen community, and benefit everyone involved.
for example,
- students can learn anything they want
- there is no time limit - school runs from birth to death.
- all classes are voluntary; you can take years off if you want.
- anyone can teach a class

Just imagine if *everyone* was a teacher... how many languages we'd have available to us to learn at school (as compared to just 2 or 3), how many different subjects you could learn..... and how fun it would be!

sound idealistic? There are schools in the real world that run on such principles. Check out www.summerhillschool.co.uk

The new Scientific Republic of Hildocerasia has voted for the resolution as the education is mandatory until the age of 65 in our country :cool:

We do support any proposition encouraging scientific and technical education without being too specific in the organisation of such education : each country should be free to organize it depending of the social context.

In have already voted for this resolution simply for this reason.

I agree with its aims and intent whole-heartedly. And must point out that implementation of the specifics of this resolution is left up to each state. If you fear that one specific part of this resolution does not meet your standards, than twist it around (so easy), as long as you follow the intent of the resolution you are keeping within the mandate.

Worried about money? Send your kids to another nation, many nations would be ok with this, our nation of Kefalia is willing to educate 1000 children per grade level p1234-k-12 (Note: preschool grades are optional). Once a child enters they are guaranteed education through 12 if they wish, or they can do 1 year however many they wish. We limit 100 children per nation (they will be taking classes in English, unless they enter one of our special language schools--we are limited so far in these). College is based on acceptance and availibility currently government sources estimate that 2,000 spots are available for foreigners.

Worried about terrorists? Screen people, use intelligence services, re-define adult, educate in such a way that a terrorist would never be able to make it through your education without changing their ways, etc. so many ways can't list them all.

Worried about it being manditory? Redifine what is meant by desire or education.

Just don't undermine the resolution too much.



Sincerely,
Minister A. Madonis

The DRA wholeheartedly supports the aims and goals of this resolution and has voted in favour of it.

The Rouge Nation of Pschycotic Pschycos would like it to be known that, although literacy is an important value, education should be at the descretion of the individual nation, not left up to a group of people who don't necessarily know what is best for YOUR nation.

Affairs like these should be left up to the individual nation to decide, therefore, we are compeled to vote against this resolution.

--Shogun Kamikaze--
Shogun of Pschycotic Pschycos
Emperor of Social Outcasts

My nation has voted in favour of this initiative. We see literacy and education in general as a right for all men, and believe that any measures to ensure all recieve decent educational efforts should be supported in full.

I find this entire resolution a waste of time for the educated people of my nation. Rather then MAKING literacy mandatory in schools, why not promote literacy at the homes instead? Putting standards to make sure every kid can read is a waste of time that could be spent on other subjects that are far more important. This resolution is worthless...

I plead to the people of the UN to repeal this resolution, as it will do nothing for our countries, except put down unnecessary standards for a matter that should be dealt with at home.

I find this entire resolution a waste of time for the educated people of my nation. Rather then MAKING literacy mandatory in schools, why not promote literacy at the homes instead? Putting standards to make sure every kid can read is a waste of time that could be spent on other subjects that are far more important. This resolution is worthless...

I plead to the people of the UN to repeal this resolution, as it will do nothing for our countries, except put down unnecessary standards for a matter that should be dealt with at home.

Firstly - it hasn't passed yet, so you can't repeal it :}

Secondly - you don't think teaching people to read is important? What other subject are there that are more important than being able to read? And if the kids can't read how are you going to teach them the other subjects?

Rouge Nation

I'm sure that joke has been made before, but how do you define a rouge nation? Is it mandatory to wear rouge for every citizen? :)

I find this entire resolution a waste of time for the educated people of my nation. Rather then MAKING literacy mandatory in schools, why not promote literacy at the homes instead? Putting standards to make sure every kid can read is a waste of time that could be spent on other subjects that are far more important. This resolution is worthless...

I plead to the people of the UN to repeal this resolution, as it will do nothing for our countries, except put down unnecessary standards for a matter that should be dealt with at home.

I agree that this is yet another one of those soft-sounding "we believe everyone should be good" kind of resolutions that gave the UN its well-deserved reputation for being mostly useless.

What the UN fails to consider for the umpteenth time is that, if things aren't working, they aren't working for a reason. Saying literacy must be given priority is not going to help anyone if children are too busy working as subsistence farmers to go to school. Since the actual implementation of the literacy initiative is left to the individual member-states then there is nothing to say that the failings of their educational systems will not plague this system as well.

The real solution would be to set certain UN literacy benchmarks (e.g., no less than 80% per cent of the population of a country should be able to read and write) and then set up ways of, and institutions for, helping those nations that fail to achieve them. Then gradually driving the benchmarks up so that literacy can eventually become universal, or nearly so.

Consider the alternative: a UN-imposed "emphasis on literacy" (as proposed in the resolution), means just that: a shifting of priorities in elementary education towards literacy. But that is not a one-size-fits-all situation: some nations have no literacy problem and would prefer to emphasise different things in their educational systems. The UN, under this resolution, could require that they do otherwise.

The Sultanate of Al-Mabhili has voted against the resolution. We believe that it encumbers those nations that don't have literacy problems without helping those that do.

Fellow U.N. Members:

After carefully weighing the pros and cons, we support this resolution because it will mean we can tax educated people for more money.

Cordially,

The Grand Duke of Melbin

Weighing this was a simple matter for us. If the children wish to read, they may study at the sides of our priests in small, tightly-knit groups. The faith of the Enlightened Realm is all-consuming, and we do not believe it would be beneficial to our people to have them learning at the hands of those who do not follow the faith. At the same time, we can not afford this initiative. Our emphasis on education comes only through the generous donations of the faithful. If the faithful are called upon to pay for the literacy of the unenlightened, that the unenlightened might spread their athiest ideals more freely, it will be a most dire blow to the faith.

I vote against this for those reasons.

DECLARES, as a right for all, the opportunity to learn how to read and write in the official language(s) of a nation and extend this right to all citizens with in member nations;

ENACTS the following to ensure this right be maintained...

5.Adults who lack the ability to read and write (or are verifiably deficient at reading and writing) are given the opportunity to become literate (or more “adequately” literate) without fee or stipulation;


Notice the words in bold above? I do not believe that many of you are. This resolution gives this new idea of literacy as a right, not a mandatory requirement. Those who are not literate "are given the opportunity" to become so. Should they unfortunately have to work day and night to keep their family alive, then chances are, they will not enter this program and no burden will be placed on the nation.

Some nations, or so I have seen, are very selfish when voting on these issues. These resolutions are written for the betterment of all, yet nations only consider their own welfare when they are going to vote, not that of others, or even their citizens. I am not pointing my finger at anyone in particular, but I have noticed this type of selfishness all over NationStates, and simply wish for it to stop.

Some nations, or so I have seen, are very selfish when voting on these issues. These resolutions are written for the betterment of all, yet nations only consider their own welfare when they are going to vote, not that of others, or even their citizens. I am not pointing my finger at anyone in particular, but I have noticed this type of selfishness all over NationStates, and simply wish for it to stop.

Actually, voting against this resolution is not necessarily a selfish act. Without meaning to point a finger at ourselves, some nations are in fact taking very good care of their citizens in terms of education. The point is how better to help those who aren't as fortunate.

We believe it would be better to focus the UN's attention and spending to those truly in need and leave everyone else well alone.

As for national interests being promoted in the UN, we suggest you live with it.

Actually, voting against this resolution is not necessarily a selfish act. Without meaning to point a finger at ourselves, some nations are in fact taking very good care of their citizens in terms of education. The point is how better to help those who aren't as fortunate.

We believe it would be better to focus the UN's attention and spending to those truly in need and leave everyone else well alone.

As for national interests being promoted in the UN, we suggest you live with it.

I respect that, but it's ones like this where you can modify the article yourself to fit your nation's needs where the "No-one will be able to afford this" accusations really get on my nerves. If you are a really poor nation, (well, my first bit of advice is, improve your economy, but anyway...) they do not have to spend as much money on this as, say, one of the nations you always see in the Top 10 of the daily reports. As you said, the point is how better to help those who aren't as fortunate. As I have said before, this resolution can and probably will, in the long run, have a very beneficial effect on one's economy. Those poorer nations can be greatly helped by this proposal.

The Kingdom of Arragoth is in full oposition to this hideous propisition. It is not the UN's place to tell us where to make tax cuts, and if we are to make tax cuts. If the UN wants to make some relief fund or UN supported school go on ahead, but it should not force us to do anything about education.

And why not? The UN exists for the betterment of mankind in NationStates. What better way to do that than to have nations educate their citizens, so that they may better understand the world around them, therefore able to improve themselves and their society? I believe that education should actually be one of the UN's higher priorities.

In fact, something I will suggest in the Technical forum: the addition of a new "Educational" category for UN proposals, with effects "Promote" and "Limit".

I am fully against this abomination
we nations should decide our education systems
if there is to be a education resitration then it must be very loose with things like the no segregation,if public edu it must be equal,public edu ENCOURAGED
and so on :mad:

Ironically, as written, this bill is the perfect proponent for a literacy resolution. Being illiterate the nation seeks to eliminate the adversity it faces.

However, the UN, if it is to be involved in such matters, should be in the business of international educational standards. Not mandating educational programs for member nations. Especially if the UN is proposing a mandatory social program without providing any form of compensation or monetary assistance.

But AP, is setting a standard not the same as establishing a mandatory educational system? No, it is not. A standard implies a minimum bar that it expects countries with educational programs to meet or surpass. A standard also allows the UN to gage the literacy of member states, and, if allowed, publish assessment results. This allows UN members to compare the success of their educational system to those of other schools. If an individual or Nation fails to meet the standards, then employment or furthering educational aspirations in other nations will be difficult as the individuals of nations, or the nation itself, will be deemed incompetent. Provided empathy does not overcome reason, thus leading to lower standards, then competition in providing the best educational programs will lead to a more educated populace.

Thus, the UN has a stance on Education, and member states can accept it or reject it, adopting programs better suited for the individual government and its peoples.

What does this bill mean by literate anyway? Reading and writing? Or does it require NS to be literate in the arts, sciences and other academic curricula? It would be great if all people could read and write; but, if they are devoid of thought due to a lack of knowledge of how the world works and how to analyze it; then we will be subjected to more weak ideas based on poor reasoning that are inflated through the use of extensive language creating an impenetrable fog of pseudo educated idiocy.

Please, do not complain about biases of standardized testing as the UN has already adopted non-discriminatory resolutions.

The UN must not be controlying yet another sector of how we run our countries :mad: :mad: :mad:

And why not? The UN exists for the betterment of mankind in NationStates. What better way to do that than to have nations educate their citizens, so that they may better understand the world around them, therefore able to improve themselves and their society? I believe that education should actually be one of the UN's higher priorities.

In fact, something I will suggest in the Technical forum: the addition of a new "Educational" category for UN proposals, with effects "Promote" and "Limit".

First, I agree that the topic of education is a high priority.

However, I don't think there should be a new category for Educational. Or rather, educational issues are still essentially social justice issues when they are focused on promoting education. I'm just not sure what the opposite proposal would be (i.e. to limit educational opportunities).

However, the UN, if it is to be involved in such matters, should be in the business of international educational standards. Not mandating educational programs for member nations. Especially if the UN is proposing a mandatory social program without providing any form of compensation or monetary assistance.

Actually, there have been a few efforts in the past 6 months to establish a United Nations Educational Trust Fund to be used to assist global educational programs.

I am accually for this. It involves helping the people. And we should keep the people first. It may be needed to go for outside help like the UN

I am replying en masse to the accusations and attacks this proposal has faced, mainly from the crowd of "every proposal that comes up passes!" nations (which I often sympathize with).


However, we, as a libertarian state, do not find it prompt to force the governments of member nations to provide that education....As such, there is no established national education system.

The Rouge Nation of Pschycotic Pschycos would like it to be known that, although literacy is an important value, education should be at the descretion of the individual nation, not left up to a group of people who don't necessarily know what is best for YOUR nation.

The delegation of the Nomadic Peoples of New York Jets Fanatics strongly believes that the suggestions presented by the proposal at hand are not beneficial to society due to the proposial's suggestion that all people be given an governmentally-supplied education at no charge.

This legislation is built upon assumptions from previous UN resolutions. It's relevance in the setting of national Sovereignty is mainly derived from the "Free Education" resolution(s). In order to be compliant and offer "free education", you must, in some public/governmental way, ensure this education. While I understand that each nation might construct their independent education systems differently and with varying levels of privatization, the assumption stands that somehow the government is ensuring the childrens' education. And through whatever mechanism the UN member nations do that, that is the mechanism through which this resolution was designed to be carried out.

I greatly appreciate Mikitivity's comments (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369156&page=2&pp=29) on Social Justice. This also applies to the next batch of concerns (after the rogue "terrorist" concern).

Imagine some terrorists enter your country from abroad, however they cannot speak the national language very well. This law would be educating them so that their position would be enhanced in society and their terrorist group could receive more funding FOR FREE.

If your problem is that they are receiving the education for free, then you need to bring this up as a request for the repeal of "Free Education" (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029655&postcount=29).

And if there is some way in which you wish to ensure that terrorists don't benefit from literacy, then you, as a sovereign nation, are fairly free to enact such legislation.

Meaning that the top students who would most benefit from excellent education won't be able to get it. The reasoning behind this is that the top educators would be focussing their efforts on children with deficiencies in learning and literature.

Due to these reasons, we have been obliged to vote against the resolution. We caution nations that should this law get passed, we ourselves would be endangering our population to terrorist actions, and we would lower the maximum IQ of our countries. The damage economically and scientifically would be too great.

There is no provision in this resolution which would "lower the maximum IQ in UN nations" per se, even though there are provisions which are enacted to try to raise the mean IQ in UN member nations. Or at least their literacy rates.

I understand the concern for the upper level students receiving fair treatment but I disagree that they will "most benefit from excellent education".

The concern you have is shared by a later poster, I will address that, too.


1-) It is deeply distressing to our Most Serene Republic that education is considered of greater value to some than others. Those at the upper end of the IQ scale do not, and in fact, cannot, *benefit* more from an education that those at the bottom end, and vice-versa. Education can expand the mind, open new horizons, free the soul and improve the quality of life for anyone - regardless of who they may be.

In the terms in which we speak, social justice, the major intent is to provide a social net to insure basic, the most basic, rights for those that are at the "bottom" of the social ladder. In order to provide for social justice, this proposal is simply resolving that there are minimum standards. Those that do not meet these minimum standards will be offered extra care until they do. It is in this argument that they will benefit the most from increased education.

Consider the following example: Joe grows up illiterate, finds a minimum wage job, barely enough to survive for himself alone. He has a very low quality of life. If he were perhaps given more care as a student in school, maybe he would have become slightly more literate. With this small amount more of literacy, he can get a better job and can improve his quality of life.

Nigel is a genius, no ifs, ands, or buts. He flies through school and reads at a high school level while his classmates are still learning about "Spot going to school". He graduates at 10 and goes through college for his PhD in under 3 years. He excels in the business field and makes at least 7 figures a year. He lives in a 10,000 sq. foot mansion has a private staff with cooks, maids, and butlers, and owns a herd of Giraffes. He has a very high quality of life. If he, instead of Joe, got a little more attention as a young student, his quality of life might be a slight amount higher than its current "Sears tower" height.

That's the point. Joe would be trying to bring his quality of life up to "average" with increased literacy education. Nigel would simply be trying to put more extravagant umbrellas in his martinis. The benefit from increased literacy attention decreases as the student is better and better on his or her own.

This is compassionate, social policy. Social justice. At least, that's my view of it. Compare and contrast my statements with Mikitivity's excellent post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369156&page=2&pp=29)

If a nation wishes to enhance it's population's IQ with enrichment programs, then it, as a sovereign nation, is fully free to do so.

Here's the next objection:
Galveston Bay considers education a local matter primarily...We do not consider it an international issue in any respect.

...this resolution...forces nations to spend a UN specified portion of their budgets, GDP and resources as the UN wishes, which may or may not suit the needs or requirements of the UN member nations themselves.

Education, according to "free education" and the "UNEC", is already an international issue. That's the precedent of UN resolutions. That's the line of thought that this proposal is following. And according to the final provision in the proposal the UN specifically avoids dictating exact spending figures. It does identify general literacy (as well as "bottom-targeted" teaching, tax incentives for educators, public adult literacy programs, etc.) as a priority for all UN members, and a basic right on an international scale. I think I just verbatim repeated myself in that statement. I know that isn't very helpful, so let me elaborate.

The UN knows that individual UN nations have differing tech levels and education policies. The UN recognizes education as an international priority, right, and issue. The UN, by general consensus/unofficially also knows that literacy is important. This proposal is merely here to embellish some of the finer details of what the UN mandates as minimum requirements for its members' education systems (as in compliance with "free education"), as establishes education as an official part of the UN international agenda. But does so, I think, in a way that is the easiest to adapt between differing nations in the UN.


I support this act as an idea, but i'm concerned that no mention of mathematics is made. Yes, literacy is important, but mathematics is equally important. I will vote no to this Resolution until a change is made to this.

This is a resolution about literacy not mathematics. It is reasonable that it does not attempt to spread itself too thin by mentioning math.

So as we read this 'resolution' (we use that term loosely), we am required to give all kinds of benifits and tax breaks to teachers and people who claim to aspire to be teachers. What gives any body outside my borders the right to determine who we give(or don't give) special consideration to?

I direct you to this resolution which says that all the UN has to do is officially exempt an area from national rule and that is fair game for international legislation. (that isn't an exact translation, but I think it gets the point across).

The rights and duties of UN States (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50).

Who gets to decide what is deficient! There are people born mentally deficient that deserve all the help they want/need. There are people just born dumb as a rock, and they can ask for help if they choose to. Then there are people who are just lazy, and why should we spend the money and waste the effort to try and teach these people?

You do. You decide what is deficient. If you wish to make the definition extravagantly complex so as to define almost no one is "deficient" that, sadly, is your decision to make. However, it's also your loss. If you wish to suppress the education of your own nation it is hardly my business and I'm not going to comment on it anymore, but to cite the words in the final section of the proposal: "in good faith".

What of those who - for their own reasons - do not wish to learn?

I do not believe that the Free Education set any precedent on truancy/ dropping out in schools. And as such I do not feel mine should either. I feel that the opportunity to learn should be offered as easily and shamelessly as possible, but people have their own agency.


btw, is it just me, or do people just vote for resolutions just because they may sound good on the surface and no-one cares enough to bother to think about the consequences of the law proposed? Indeed, people voted the "Axis" propsition in, and than voted it out whilst barely caring how it would affect them. We, who are the intelligent people, advise other such nations to think about what could go wrong before you pass a resolution. Remember you only get one side of the argument from the person who proposed the treaty. You have to go the rest of the way.

One of the reasons for this trend is the delegate-approval process. Because it takes so many delegate approvals it screens out most inappropriate, unintelligent and potentially harmful proposals. So those that reach the floor already have a large support base and are probably neutral/helpful enough to be passed anyway. There are plenty of dumb proposals the UN passes up. Just read the proposal list, it's chock full of them.

This is a mighty long post (or series of posts if I decide to break them up), so this is my last response for the post (post-set):

Ironically, as written, this bill is the perfect proponent for a literacy resolution. Being illiterate the nation seeks to eliminate the adversity it faces.

My region finds it very amusing that your proposal for imnproved literacy itself suffers from poor literacy itself.

Capitalisation is done on the first letter of the first word of a sentence or on the names of specific people/persons or objects/nouns (ie. names). Capitalising every letter in the first word is not correct and a result of inadequate literacy. Good luck in improving literacy, as it always begins at home.

Okay, I can't resist. Isn't it a bit silly to PROMOTE literacy with a U.N. PROPOSAL when you WRITE things LIKE this? A bit of an exaggeration, but the people who say the precedent for UN resolution formatting is to "italicize" (but replaced with capitalization because of the capabilities of Nationstates) are silly, as 10 proposals out of the 179 passed are formatted as such, and most of them are recent.

As much as I appreciate the concern for my own literacy, I will not be accepting donations (for the betterment of my writing ability, of course) of less than $20,000, USD. Make sure the notes are all $20s and $50s, non-sequential, in a dark briefcase. And make sure you aren't followed.

I found many of those telegrams you posted fairly ignorant and hostile. If you would like to visit the IDU forum, I have a do not contact list for nations that respond like that.

TO ALL DELEGATES

As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have been informed by the Avalerian Ambassor to the UN that the Literacy Initiative is a well-formed piece of legislation that would not only benefit my nation, but other nations as well. I argue in favor of this legislation not only as a Minister of my nation, but as a citizen of the world. Education is beyond a right of each human being, it is a key to enlightment. For those states who wish to minimize the role of the government's involvement with the lives of their citizens, this does not overreach the scope of a typical liberaterian government. You can support this cause while still maintain an economic matrix that will not tax citizens to death. I advice these liberaterian states to join our cause, not because it's popular, but because it is right.

1.Literacy, and the attainment thereof, is established as the critical priority in the secular education granted by member nations, in accordance with “free education”, to its citizens;

"Secular" is unacceptable. Here, at the Theocracy of Our Savior Christ, we recognize the importance of religion in education, and not only do we place the teachings of the Christ in very high importance in our educational system (which we are very proud of and probably already put the funding this resolution calls for into it), but we also use the scriptures as educational tools; especially involving literacy.

Also, this is NOT in accordance with "free education". "Free education" does not dictate the content of education to be secular-- only that it is granted. Not only does this part of the resolution, which we would otherwise support, impose ridiculous limitations on the content of education, but it is also incorrect. Delegates voting for this resolution are voting for a resolution that is flawed-- containing a lie.

Also, this is NOT in accordance with "free education". "Free education" does not dictate the content of education to be secular-- only that it is granted. Not only does this part of the resolution, which we would otherwise support, impose ridiculous limitations on the content of education, but it is also incorrect. Delegates voting for this resolution are voting for a resolution that is flawed-- containing a lie.

This resolution contains no "lies", as you put forth. I personally beleive it to be in accordance with both the spirit and letter of previous education bills (free education, UNEC).

True, it is not included in the "free education" resolution that the education provided must be secular. But it is assumed by the Reformed Literacy Initiative that any sort of governemnt provided education compliance that's passable would include some secular portions. It is also assumed by the text that the increasing of litaracy would be done in a secular manner.

But this proposal is not out to dictate the interpretation of previous legislation or the application of presumed norms in member nations. As such, I remind the representative of the final clause of the proposal which gives leeway to those UN member nations that have unorthodox or unforeseen differences with the norms assumed by the text proper.

The Sacred Realms of Aegonia has voted against this resolution. We do not provide "secular schooling" as described in the resolution.

i wish this inititive hadn't been enacted... It DRASTICLY pushed down my ecomamy...

Hurrah! *Hands a glass of champange to Powerhungry*

Woot! Woot! Teh 733+ pr0p0s0rz!

...Darn, now I have to change my signature. :(

The resolution Reformed Literacy Initiative was passed 11,585 votes to 3,294, and implemented in all UN member nations.
Congratulations, Powerhungry Chipmonks!