NationStates Jolt Archive

Honored Ambassador,

The United Nations Association -- Mikitivity would like to conduct a survey to feel out the NS UN forum’s interest in various UN resolution categories. These results will be archived and shared with UN members and non-members in order to facilitate better proposal writing. This second survey focuses just on Social Justice. The first survey focused on Human Rights, and we’d encourage you to look at that survey (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372841) as well if you’ve not already participated in that survey.

Since national opinions are subject to change, this survey is limited and will be conducted again at a future date.

As your schedule permits, please respond to the poll included with this survey. These responses are general, but comments (in the form of a post) are most welcomed and will be reviewed and shared along side the poll results. I think you’ll be pleased with the graphics we plan to share based on these survey results!

Background
(taken from the official UN description of Free Trade and Social Justice resolutions):

Free Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Social Justice
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all UN member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all UN member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

A printer friendly copy of all 12 UN Social Justice resolutions (passed and failed) is available at the UNA archive:

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/SocJust.pdf

Here is a chronological list of the 12 Social Justice resolutions that have been brought to the UN floor to date:

Education for All
UN Taxation Ban
Required Basic Healthcare
‘RBH’ Replacement
Global AIDS Initiative
The Rights of Labor Unions
World Blood Bank
The 40 Hour Workweek
Refugee Protection Act
Needle Sharing Prevention
The Sexes Rights Law
Reformed Literacy Initiative

The question:

How likely are you to support a UN Social Justice Resolution?

Always (We supported all of them)
Very Likely (We supported 75% to 100% of them)
Likely (We supported 50% to 75% of them)
Unlikely (We supported 25% to 50% of them)
Very Unlikely (We supported 0% to 25% of them)
Never (We supported none of them)
other – please explain

Thank you,
Janet Van Dyne
Chairwoman, United Nations Association -- Mikitivity

As I have said in other threads, quite a lot of times, I believe the UN exists to support and stand up for the least amongst us. Those who can not stand up for themselves, either because the government refuses to let them, or because they are incapable of doing so for various reasons.

Consequently I believe Social Justice resolutions are the most "worthwhile" of the group (not to say the others are not worthwhile of course) and should be supported the most.

I have not been in the UN that long - around two months now (wow - it does seem a LOT longer than that, but that is another matter) - so a lot of these resolutions were passed before I joined. However were I around at the time I would have supported all of them, as they all seem to do what the UN (in my view) was created for.

As I have said in other threads, quite a lot of times, I believe the UN exists to support and stand up for the least amongst us. Those who can not stand up for themselves, either because the government refuses to let them, or because they are incapable of doing so for various reasons.

Consequently I believe Social Justice resolutions are the most "worthwhile" of the group (not to say the others are not worthwhile of course) and should be supported the most.

Yeah, that's my view exactly. I think it was the Human Rights Poll thread where I said that I consider people to be citizens of the UN, who just see my nation a convenient cultural and administrative division (Ok, so I've rephrased it a bit). It is for this reason that I tend to vote for Social Justice and Human Rights. People take priority over Nations.

My governmental views are massively different, as I consider people citizens of the place they live, and not the UN as a whole... Primarily in the view that I believe the government with the most pervue over the people they represent, as that segment which is closest to them... And then that social justice is only implimented on the cases where the local government fails... IOW the higher levels exist only to handle failures at local levels... This also translates to other differences, in my view the people of Tekania are citizens of the Republic, and it is the Republic which represents them to the UN, and not the UN representing them to the government... And then when the UN or a Federal Body, must step in to resolve a local issue, it is because of a failure of the local body to represent their consistuency, therby a failure of the locality to perform its duty as representative. (This is abit different than the views of democrats and autocrats, in lieu of my platonic and aristotelian principles of "The Republic")... And this is an aspect the NSUN fails, in many cases, since it almost mandates that people exercize rights granted, rather than merely giving them a particular right... For example, a resolution mandating a social welfare system, might be trying to force this "right" on people who do believe in it... or mandating a corporate welfare system, or mandating how free speach will work... etc... It oversteps its bounds in those categories... Social Justice is abit different, in that, at least, most of the time is catagoized correctly (however there are some Human Rights Resolutions that should be Social Justice, sic "Legalize Prostitution", since it is legalizing an activity under the guide of fairness and equity, as opposed to making a declarative judgement or grant).

So in my view, social justice, like "fair trial", "due process" etc. are valid operatives to correct the irresponsibilities of local states to properly represent their own people.

I believe that Social Justice is a large part of a nation - One of the questions your nation is initially created upon is "A nation should be judged by how it treats it's worst-off citizens." I try to keep the income gap in my nation to an absolute minimum, and would like to see more proposals to this effect.

I don't recall that I ever voted FOR on one of these. That national sovereignty thing keeps getting in the way.

My governmental views are massively different, as I consider people citizens of the place they live, and not the UN as a whole... Primarily in the view that I believe the government with the most pervue over the people they represent, as that segment which is closest to them... And then that social justice is only implimented on the cases where the local government fails... IOW the higher levels exist only to handle failures at local levels... This also translates to other differences, in my view the people of Tekania are citizens of the Republic, and it is the Republic which represents them to the UN, and not the UN representing them to the government... And then when the UN or a Federal Body, must step in to resolve a local issue, it is because of a failure of the local body to represent their consistuency, therby a failure of the locality to perform its duty as representative. (This is abit different than the views of democrats and autocrats, in lieu of my platonic and aristotelian principles of "The Republic")
[... edited for length...]
So in my view, social justice, like "fair trial", "due process" etc. are valid operatives to correct the irresponsibilities of local states to properly represent their own people.

I didn't mean to imply that we had the same governmental world view. I merely meant to say that we both
believe the UN exists to support and stand up for the least amongst us
I agree that if the UN has to step in, then the local authority hasn't done it's job properly, and that in an ideal world it wouldn't have to.
I am firmly of the belief that people should be able to live their lives in whatever way they choose, and that the UN is a means to an end.

I didn't mean to imply that we had the same governmental world view. I merely meant to say that we both

I agree that if the UN has to step in, then the local authority hasn't done it's job properly, and that in an ideal world it wouldn't have to.
I am firmly of the belief that people should be able to live their lives in whatever way they choose, and that the UN is a means to an end.


More or less...

My possed problem is the tendency to make statements as to how people will exercize rights, (I consider that an overstepping of NSUN authority).

For example, a declarative right, "Freedom of the press shall not be infringed" is a proper context... However, to make a statement that all nations will have free press, and that in the scope free press shall be exercizes in THIS MANNER, and then listing what nations will do to make press free (government supported public broadcasting services, etc.) is an overstepping of NSUN authority... and one which the NSUN has exercized before.. which we consider, to be blunt, illegal... It's like handing someone a right, and then giving them a procedure that the must follow... The concept is self-defeating, because it is no longer "free" if it must be exercized in a certain way... But that's a qualm I have with certain NSUN resolution righters and voters in that aspect.

Yeah, but if the UN didn't specify some sort of method, then nations would be free to interpret the resolution in their own way. Like if we didn't say that each nation should have 'government supported public broadcasting services', then a nation which didn't like the idea of a free press could encourage Newscorp style conglomerates, which aren't exactly known for their freedom from bias.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel there does need to be some sort of specification. This, I guess, is where our differing views on the role of the UN come in.

Yeah, but if the UN didn't specify some sort of method, then nations would be free to interpret the resolution in their own way. Like if we didn't say that each nation should have 'government supported public broadcasting services', then a nation which didn't like the idea of a free press could encourage Newscorp style conglomerates, which aren't exactly known for their freedom from bias.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel there does need to be some sort of specification. This, I guess, is where our differing views on the role of the UN come in.

"Free Press" does not mean free from bias, it means the press is free to report with no government bias or interference... It's an extension of free speach... And the same thing in all reality. The existance of non-existance of a public broadcasting service has no bearing, and never will have any direct bearing on any principle of "free speach"... The only people capable of exercizing the concept is "the people" the government can't do it... Which is why the Republic has a problem with those concepts, they are inherantly "anti-freedom" proposals guised in a false cloak of "freedom"..

But, we have come to accept that most of the NSUN are totalitarian statists, and merely differ between one another on religious ideas, and economic models, and very few have any interest in creating a free society.

Yeah, fair enough. I took freedom of the press to mean responsible journalism. Living in England, I link accurate reporting with the BBC. This may or may not be true, but I have come to associate it with public service broadcasting.

IMHO, 'Free Press' should mean freedom from bias or interference, government or otherwise. In theory, a public service broadcaster shoud be free from bias, as it does not have vested interests.

IMHO, 'Free Press' should mean freedom from bias or interference, government or otherwise. In theory, a public service broadcaster shoud be free from bias, as it does not have vested interests.

It has a vested interest in continuing to receive funding so it can serve the public.

Yeah, fair enough. I took freedom of the press to mean responsible journalism. Living in England, I link accurate reporting with the BBC. This may or may not be true, but I have come to associate it with public service broadcasting.

OOC: The BBC news broadcasts I've seen in North America and Europe strike me as well balanced. There online reports also (IMHO) are well done. Not that anybody was asking, but at least this one individual that doesn't live in the UK trusts the BBC. :)

Well, in all honesty, there is no such thing as "free from bias"... But, at least in the Republic's understanding of freedom of the press, is that it is the people, and therefore the press that are the only one who may rightfully express bias... in lieu of their freedom to express their ideas in speech and text... As such, we leave the press, and reporting to the people, rather than some governmental group.

Tekania is a free market nation...

The Free Land of Mief voted "other" in this poll.

Usually Mief supports most Social Justice resolutions, provided they are well drafted, and solid. The Free Land will vote against any Resolutions that are poorly put together or unclear, and may even go as far as to oppose resolutions that have many mispellings and/or poor grammer. Those that are submitting resolutions into the UN should know how to draft a resolution as well as spend time defining the terms and knowing what the UN can and cannot do.

It has a vested interest in continuing to receive funding so it can serve the public.

Oh, yeah. So you're saying that if threatened with no funding, it would play the govenment line. But if it's just saying what the government wants it to, then its not really serving the public is it?

OOC: When I was on holiday on the continent, I watched a fair bit of CBS news, cos loads of the hotels in France seem to have it. Anyway, I was struck by how little it seemed to tell me. The world they were showing seemed so simple.

Oh, yeah. So you're saying that if threatened with no funding, it would play the govenment line. But if it's just saying what the government wants it to, then its not really serving the public is it?

Pretty much. And the fact that its not really serving the public anymore is something that's unfortunately often lost on the people who are forced to give in to the demands of those who control the funding. It's rather like politicians who allow themselves to become corrupted in order to stay in office and serve the people. It just doesn't make any sense. Of course, most people don't make any sense anyway.

OOC: When I was on holiday on the continent, I watched a fair bit of CBS news, cos loads of the hotels in France seem to have it. Anyway, I was struck by how little it seemed to tell me. The world they were showing seemed so simple.

I think that's pretty much what all American stations are like. For that matter, that's pretty much what all Americans are like.

*bump*

I'll be sharing the results of this information next month at the UNA site.

Is that the UN Archive? And can you post a link please?

*bump*

The deadline is approaching on the three UNA polls. :)

This poll will close in two days! :)

Thanks in advance to all who participated.