NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

I am asking you all to pledge your support to my 'War and Peace Acts', which are currently proposal to the UN, awating delegate approval. Because the overall act is so broad, I had to break it down into smaller chunks, or 'resolutions'. I ask you delegates to pledge your support my approvals whichever resolutions you agree with:

War and Peace Act
Resolution 1: The Army
Resolution 2: Nuclear Weapons
Resolution 3: Gun Ownership
Resolution 4: The Death Penalty
Resolution 5: The Environment
Resolution 6: The Elderly
Resolution 7: The Prison System
Resolution 8: Mother and Child (currently called ‘Abortion’, but the overall topic is infact bigger)
Resolution 9: Healthcare
Resolution 10:Homosexual Marriage

Thank you very much, and please post any comments, agreeing or disagreeing, or saying you have voted in favour. Or, if you want me to post any further resolutions to this act.

Thank you again,
Stansfeldland

I only grabbed the first four, because the others were just as carefully crafted and equally likely to pass. Nornally, I'd try to say something nice here, but not this time. Stansfeldland, you're a lunatic. Not only are you spamming the UN proposal list with useless, unargued points, but half of them are already law or blatantly illegal. Go away.
War and Peace Act Resolution 1
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Stansfeldland

Description: The Army:
No country may have an army which is over 1/10 of the size of it?s population. Under international law, the use of war to settle disputes will be banned. However, a country may only use force to defend itself. Army conscription is illegal.
War and Peace Act Resolution 2
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Stansfeldland

Description: Nuclear weapons:
All nuclear weapons must be dismantled and destroyed within 5 years.
War and Peace Act Resolution 3
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.

Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten
Proposed by: Stansfeldland

Description: Gun ownership:
No citizens of this planet shall be allowed to own a gun.
War and Peace Act Resolution 4
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Stansfeldland

Description: Death Penalty:
The death penalty will be outlawed under international law.

I would like to say that infact you are the lunatic. If you don't want the safe environment with decent healthcare and a safe warless society, then well you're just insane.
Secondly, I would have passed it all in one go, but however the UN would not allow that, so it is in resolution style.
Thirdly, the majority of the points on my bills are not currently under international law.

I am not saying you are a lunatic, but I think ten proposals is possibly a little over the top.

Firstly it is generally considered good manners and wise to post a copy of the proposal on this forum, so that we all know what we are discussing. In this case a copy of each proposal would be required.

Secondly there are a number of things wrong with some of the proposals, either because they are game violations (these will get deleted) and others because they are somewhat implausible.

Act 10 : Until "Gay Rights" is repealed, this will not be permitted to pass under game mechanics. Sorry - that's just the way things are in the UN. Also arguing that people can not do something under the banner of civil rights is potentially a conflict of interest.

Act 9 : There are two other resolutions that deal with health care. I am not convinced we need another one, especially one that is somewhat vague.

Act 8 : Abortion is already available to all women under the "Legalize Abortion" resolution. The part about day care makes no specifics clear - it just says she can claim depending on her income. This leaves it open for all sorts of potential abuse by any number of governments.

Act 7 : This is actually not that bad. However it does assume that all prisoners can be rehabilitated, which a lot of nations would argue is not true.

Act 6 : This makes no account for million and billionaires. I am all for looking out for those who can not support themselves, but an eighty year old man who has a personal fortune of ten billion gold pieces is on his own. This proposal also interacts with the other two healthcare resolutions already part of UN law.

Act 5: This kind of assumes that people have the technology to do this. The trees are already replanted (I think?) under another resolution. Hydrogen is one of the most comubstable fuels known to man, so I am not sure it is a good idea to put it in cars. And since most of our power needs are filled by stations that use nuclear power, it would be impossible, not to mention deeply damaging to dismantle them in five years. Especially since we have nothing to replace them with.

Act 4 : We don't have the death penalty, but I am not going to be so bold as to suggest it should be banned in other nations just cause we find it distateful. We find religion, smoking, the work of a comedien named Benny Hill and rabbits distateful, but I am not sure we would be permitted to ban them either.

Act 3: Does this include the military? And does it account for people who use guns for sporting competitions? And - as other people have mentioned - does it account for UN member nations that do not reside on the planet, but are alien races instead?

Act 2 : While I have no problem with the concept of this, I can pretty much tell you it is not going to happen. The last but one vote on the floor of the UN was a proposal that was far less radical that destroying all weapons, and it was voted down by quite a large majority. The main problem is that UN Resolutions only apply to the UN, and so this would leave all the Non-UN nations free to blow the living daylights out of us. Which is not a good thing. (If you are curious, there are 36 thousand UN member nations out of over 900 thousand NS nations. Which is a ratio of about 30 to 1)

Act 1 : Does the 10% include times of war? So that if (may The Powers prevent it) we had to go to war and 11% of my people wanted to join up, I would have to turn away 1% of them until a large enough proportion of my army was dead? And if you can not use war to settle disputes, what would you suggest member nations do if genocide is being committed in the next country? Just ask them nicely to stop slaughting everyone in site?

These are all reasonable and logical comments/objections. Some of them are undeniably violations of game mechanics, which will not be accepted by the moderators, others are based on past knowledge (the one about nukes) and the others are just things that either I have come up with, or have heard expressed in other threads.

Thirdly, and this is just personal preference and good advice, which you are free to ignore, but generally it is better to work at one proposal, get it right, get it submitted, approved, voted on and then passed so it becomes a resolution. Trying to do ten at once is asking for trouble, especially since this (these) appear to be your first attempts at getting a proposal in to the UN.
And given all the comments I have made (and believe me - I have been pretty accepting in what you have done. There will be others who can probably find bigger holes than I have) I don't believe that you will be able to see all ten through the approval and voting procedures in one go. My best advice is focus on just one of them, then if that passes (and it's generally not certain that it will) move on to another one. Otherwise you will be burning your candle at both ends, and although it might be a pretty light, it will be over pretty quickly.

This is just friendly advice - I am trying to write a resolution now. I strarted it around two weeks ago and it has not even passed the draft stage yet. Making law in the UN is (or should be) a long process, and you would do well to take advice from some other people who have managed to suceed, since they put a lot of work and effort in to it.

...for being so kind, and believe, I have had a lot worse, and expect more of it! Originally this was all one proposal, but as you probably could guess, was deleted due to it spanning so many categories. I am pretty sure 9/10 of these will fail, due to the shear amount of objection.
In the future, I plam to learn from this experience, I focus on an issue at a time, with more detailed resolutions. And I can guarantee, they won't come under the War and Peace Act again!

Best wishes for the future,
Stansfeldland

...for being so kind, and believe, I have had a lot worse, and expect more of it! Originally this was all one proposal, but as you probably could guess, was deleted due to it spanning so many categories. I am pretty sure 9/10 of these will fail, due to the shear amount of objection.
In the future, I plam to learn from this experience, I focus on an issue at a time, with more detailed resolutions. And I can guarantee, they won't come under the War and Peace Act again!

Best wishes for the future,
Stansfeldland

I am glad I can be of assistance.

If I may be so bold as to make one further suggestion, I would really suggest focusing on Act 7 (the prisoner one), since it is one that doesn't violate current international law (which is always a good thing) and is one I believe would have the most chance of being acceptable to a large number of nations. (Although, but this is just my personal view, you might have to accept that countries are going to execute people for the time being. Sorry).

I really do hope I see some of these again in the future, because some of them do have promise. I think that your only real "mistake" (if you will permit the phrase) is trying to do too much at once, and every one of us has been guilty of that at one time or another!).

Tori.

I posted this in one of the other topics, so I'll quote it here. This is why I oppose this:

Military conflict has been one of the leading causes of technological revolution. Concerns about the environment is what causes people to strive to help limit what damage they do and focus on how to advance themselves in ways that won't use up the limited resources. Worries about education forces some to strive to learn as much as they can and try their best to add to what is known, as well as revolutionizing how people learn. Worries about healthcare makes people strive to understand the body, to research into fields they wouldn't normally touch, and to show their concern for others by worrying about them. Worries about pensions makes people work hard to build them and glad they did the work when they have them.

Your ideal society doesn't create a world where humanity grows and learns, but one where it stagnates and dies. Humanity is such a warlike and primitive species because that is how it advances itself and through conflict is how it justifies itself, no matter whether that conflict is repelling invaders or simply just having enough money to enjoy your retirement years. It is through the struggle, through the fight, through pure conflict that humans come to have their pride and come to feel as though they have accomplished something despite the fact nothing has changed, despite the fact humanity has yet to develop a civilization worthy of the word, and despite the fact the world hasn't actually changed.

Until you understand that, you will never understand humanity or why it is that conflict and challenges must exist.

What in the world does gay marriage have to do with war and peace?

Is this some yaoi reworking of Tolstoy?

What in the world does gay marriage have to do with war and peace?

Is this some yaoi reworking of Tolstoy?
Oh dear. Now I won't be able to think of anything else all week.

You, my friend, are a dillusional, misguided, idealistic, liberal-minded moron.

Your resolutions attempt to take away guns? If guns were outlawed then only outlaws would have guns. Studies conclude that regions with a higher percentage of guns per household have a drastically lower crime rate.

The only real one I agree with is the one about gay marriage, however it is poorly worded and against game mechanics.

You, my friend, are a dillusional, misguided, idealistic, liberal-minded moron.

Your resolutions attempt to take away guns? If guns were outlawed then only outlaws would have guns. Studies conclude that regions with a higher percentage of guns per household have a drastically lower crime rate.

The only real one I agree with is the one about gay marriage, however it is poorly worded and against game mechanics.

First of all, what is wrong with having liberal views?
Second, where do that statistic come from. If I may go out of game mode for a minute. In America, everyone has the right to bear arms, and they have something like 11,000 gun-related murders each year. In Britian, they are not allowed to bear arms, but they have something like 40 or 50 gun-related murders each year. Go figure!
Thirdly, after read R. 10, it is very very poorly worded!

First of all, what is wrong with having liberal views?
Second, where do that statistic come from. If I may go out of game mode for a minute. In America, everyone has the right to bear arms, and they have something like 11,000 gun-related murders each year. In Britian, they are not allowed to bear arms, but they have something like 40 or 50 gun-related murders each year. Go figure!
Thirdly, after read R. 10, it is very very poorly worded!

In the Netherlands, iirc, every adult male is required to have a military-grade assault rifle in their home and they have the same rate, if not lower, as Britain.

You, my friend, are a dillusional, misguided, idealistic, liberal-minded moron.
Knock off the namecalling. Now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Maybe we could have an editorial service for polishing up proposals? Seriously, people could volunteer.

Maybe we could have an editorial service for polishing up proposals? Seriously, people could volunteer.
We do. It's called the UN Forum. There are always volunteers who will offer assistance with language, phrasing, and legality. It only works when people bring their proposals here before submitting them, though.

Seeing as these ten topics are the same topics which are endlessly recycled in Nation States, how about someone throws a more wittily worded attempt on one of these topics. A little light relief for a change perhaps?

I answered yes; however, I do not believe this resolution has any bearing on bringing about a "safer" and free world.

In fact, I see some of these as a direct threat to the principles of "freedom".