NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings comrades of Nationstates, i appeal to you to hear my UN Proposal and ask you support it. I believe that this resolution with proper support could be an alternative to killing or just simply detaining a terrible criminal who has committed among the worst of offenses. This will aid all countries no matter what position on the political spectrum. Grant me support and this resolution shall reward your nations.

Slave Labor Act
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Greater Augustograd

Description: The Death penalty is a good way to deal with the rapists, serial killers, and mass murderers of the country. But why get rid of useful labor? Proliferate all these criminals into a single mass and use them to create buildings, roads, and schools. Labor is very valuable and cannot be simply wasted, and if slave labor does not punish the criminals, they will more than likely just kill each other. This Act works for the liberals and conservatives of the country, nobody loses.

§Part 1
All enemies of the state will be detained and sent to labor camps with the most basic of necessities.

§Part 2 minimal tax dollars will be sent to provide for the detainees, the prisoners will farm their own food and sell products created with their labor for buying clothes and etc.

§Part 3 Minimal Human Rights shall not apply to these prisoners. This is included in their punishment.

§Part 4 Guards and walls will be tax dollar funded, profits from prisoner labor will be diverted to the pay of employees of the detention centers for less tax dependence.

But wouldn't that hurt the economy by taking away work from laborers whose role is to build infrastructure? By using prisoners, you would be putting untold thousands of people out of work. This just sounds like government cost-cutting at the expense of the lower class to me. Plus, do you really want a criminal building your house or repairing the street you live on?

Good points, Voltairea. In addition, I'm not too fond of the clause stating that basic human rights no longer belong to the detainees. This means that prisoners could be tortured, starved, and persecuted without reason. While I realize that they are terrible criminals, I also uphold their rights as basic human beings.

Isn't there an abolish slavery resolution?
That would probably have to be repealed before this could be introduced.

Good points, Voltairea. In addition, I'm not too fond of the clause stating that basic human rights no longer belong to the detainees. This means that prisoners could be tortured, starved, and persecuted without reason. While I realize that they are terrible criminals, I also uphold their rights as basic human beings.
Well, but maybe if we had some human being criteria to test people for. I mean, you're assuming serial killers are humans. One could argue that they're animals in the shape of man.

Isn't there an abolish slavery resolution?
That would probably have to be repealed before this could be introduced.

Want to know something interesting? I went back and read that resolution to see if it applied to convicted criminals. The resolution states that all people can "own possessions" and "move freely throughout their land." This means that any type of imprisonment is actually illegal under UN law. I've decided to write a repeal so we can rewrite an anti-slavery resolution that's more specific and actually feasible. Who's with me?

I think the idea is that by commiting violent crime, they've shown that they are not capable of functioning in society, therefore the gov takes care of them.

Well, but maybe if we had some human being criteria to test people for. I mean, you're assuming serial killers are humans. One could argue that they're animals in the shape of man.
Do they have anywhere from forty-five to forty-nine chromosomes (depending on genetic disorders, etc.)? Do they fear death? Are they capable of speech and creative thought? Just because they are evil doesn't mean that they aren't human in a physiological sense. Also, I see it as a disrespect to the people killed to label their killer as an animal. I'd rather die at the hands of a person than because of an animal, if I had to choose one over the other, of course. Nargopia, I would endorse that repeal so long as you'll write it.

Well, but maybe if we had some human being criteria to test people for. I mean, you're assuming serial killers are humans. One could argue that they're animals in the shape of man.

The moment we strip somebody's status as a human being, the moment they lose their basic human rights. No matter how terrible a person is, they should always have these fundamental rights.

Voltairea, thank you for your support. I shall begin work on the repeal immediately.

Do they have anywhere from forty-five to forty-nine chromosomes (depending on genetic disorders, etc.)? Do they fear death? Are they capable of speech and creative thought? Just because they are evil doesn't mean that they aren't human in a physiological sense. Also, I see it as a disrespect to the people killed to label their killer as an animal. I'd rather die at the hands of a person than because of an animal, if I had to choose one over the other, of course. Nargopia, I would endorse that repeal so long as you'll write it.
Yes, No, and Yes, the case people are talking about in my neck of the woods.
So that one would fail your test.

I don't see how it's disrespectful of the people killed to say their killer doesn't meet the basic standards of humanity. And I wouldn't prefer being killed by a human to being killed by an animal.

The suggestion was facetious; I'd be too worried, of course, that I might not pass such a test if one existed.

The moment we strip somebody's status as a human being, the moment they lose their basic human rights.

*Um, yeah*

That was the point of this proposal, right? The post about reintroducing slavery?

That was the point of this proposal, right? The post about reintroducing slavery?

Exactly, which is why I am so vehemently opposed to it.

Well, but maybe if we had some human being criteria to test people for. I mean, you're assuming serial killers are humans. One could argue that they're animals in the shape of man.
human criteria, just like the nazis and other racists all over the world (and they are human, too).
you can't take basic rights from human beings or put them out of the humanity. this is pure evil.
today you say criminals arn't humans, and the next day someone could say that on black people or muslims or jews. that will never stop.
a human is a human, no matter what is actions was.

Actually, all you need put into this proposal is "All UN Nations have the right to put criminals into forced labor camps. This action will NOT be considered to be in violation of any resolution concerning slavery and/or forced work, but rather a form of social justice by which the condemned, through their crime, has been allowed the opportunity to..." blah blah blah.

Part 3 is illegal, however, and too harsh in our view. A prisoner is allowed basic human rights - including toilet facilities, the ability to wash, sufficient caloric intake, reasonable medical attention, clothing, place to sleep in reasonable security.

Removing ALL dignity from a prisoner does not aid rehabiiltation, and creates more unruly prisoners. Ultimately, bad for the State.

I think if you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals. It won't stop the committing future crimes, if anything it will encourage them to become even more anti-social.

So obviously I am against this.

Extreme, quite possibly illegal due to violations of previous resolutions (the UBR and "no cruel or unusual punishment in particular), and quite frankly disgusting.

Given that the trend in the UN has always been towards liberalism and towards greater rights for all peoples, and away from discrimination and cruelty, I think I am justified in predicting that there's no way in hell this will pass, even if you were to make descending to that level voluntary.

You're not going to make us gut our prison and rehabilitation system, you're not going to make us set fire to our constitution and strip basic rights from our citizens, and you won't make us treat even the worst criminals in such a fashion. If you want to do that kind of thing, hey, it's your country. Leave the UN and go do whatever horrific things you want to your criminals. But don't expect us to join you.

What are you talking about Kelssek? They are going to spiffy this up and rewrite it so it resembles something it is not and ram it down our throat like everything else that happens to us. People will not take the time to read the facts, if it you get a good spin doctor most individuals will read "Terrible Criminals bad; we will punish!" and immediately jump on the boat. "Yeah, criminals bad, we like hurt bad men, they hurt me." Pretty soon the mob rule takes over and we have yet another ridiculous resolution passed. Woo hoo. I cannot wait! Besides, it has been a few days since our economy has taken a beating. I cannot wait to get knocked down to 'weak' again!!

What are you talking about Kelssek? They are going to spiffy this up and rewrite it so it resembles something it is not and ram it down our throat like everything else that happens to us. People will not take the time to read the facts, if it you get a good spin doctor most individuals will read "Terrible Criminals bad; we will punish!" and immediately jump on the boat. "Yeah, criminals bad, we like hurt bad men, they hurt me." Pretty soon the mob rule takes over and we have yet another ridiculous resolution passed. Woo hoo. I cannot wait! Besides, it has been a few days since our economy has taken a beating. I cannot wait to get knocked down to 'weak' again!!

Boo hoo. The way I see it, you have two options.

1)Leave the UN. Set your own laws and policy, and laugh at the silly fools who work so hard to spread their views throughout the NS Universe.

2)Contribute something to this proposal. Help spiffy it up and rewrite it into something that you would be able to live with. The only people that have a right to complain are those who work to get their ideas across.

Boo hoo. The way I see it, you have two options.

1)Leave the UN. Set your own laws and policy, and laugh at the silly fools who work so hard to spread their views throughout the NS Universe.

2)Contribute something to this proposal. Help spiffy it up and rewrite it into something that you would be able to live with. The only people that have a right to complain are those who work to get their ideas across.
If that's the way you see it, you might want to get an eye exam. You neglected to mention a third option: campaign against it.

I notice many references to "if you don't like the proposal leave the UN" type responses lately. I don't understand this response as the entire purpose of the UN is to debate policy. In a debate there is generally, at the very least, two sides. Are you stating that anyone who feels a proposal is bad should resign from the UN? That's certainly a novel approach. Isn't there a word for attempting to eliminate dissenting opinions....?

Why should someone contribute to this proposal? It is proposing slavery. Why the h*ll would anyone want to spiffy *that* up?

And just so you know - there is no criteria for the right to complain.

If that's the way you see it, you might want to get an eye exam. You neglected to mention a third option: campaign against it.

I notice many references to "if you don't like the proposal leave the UN" type responses lately. I don't understand this response as the entire purpose of the UN is to debate policy. In a debate there is generally, at the very least, two sides. Are you stating that anyone who feels a proposal is bad should resign from the UN? That's certainly a novel approach. Isn't there a word for attempting to eliminate dissenting opinions....?

Why should someone contribute to this proposal? It is proposing slavery. Why the h*ll would anyone want to spiffy *that* up?

And just so you know - there is no criteria for the right to complain.

I apologize. For some reason I thought that I included "campaign against it" under my second point. Looking back, I realize that I left it out.

However, Henrytopia didn't provide any debate here. No, I'm not stating that anyone who feels a proposal is bad should resign, I'm stating that they should debate the proposal if they feel it contrasts with their views. Let me know of any points of debate you find in this:

What are you talking about Kelssek? They are going to spiffy this up and rewrite it so it resembles something it is not and ram it down our throat like everything else that happens to us. People will not take the time to read the facts, if it you get a good spin doctor most individuals will read "Terrible Criminals bad; we will punish!" and immediately jump on the boat. "Yeah, criminals bad, we like hurt bad men, they hurt me." Pretty soon the mob rule takes over and we have yet another ridiculous resolution passed. Woo hoo. I cannot wait! Besides, it has been a few days since our economy has taken a beating. I cannot wait to get knocked down to 'weak' again!!

I think if you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals. It won't stop the committing future crimes, if anything it will encourage them to become even more anti-social.

So obviously I am against this.
all kidding aside, i strongly agree with this point.

all kidding aside, i strongly agree with this point.

So suggesting that "terrible criminals" are not the ones we should be worrying about, but the "Really good criminals" are would be bad timing?

So suggesting that "terrible criminals" are not the ones we should be worrying about, but the "Really good criminals" are would be bad timing?
I should get "Ba-dum ching! guy" to register here, just for that.

I was trying to emphasise the point that actually doing such things would very likely violate several UN resolutions, thus requiring the nation in question to leave the UN if they wanted to carry them out. But I guess it came out wrong. Sorry.

The person who wrote this proposal spammed me with it 2 times, so here I am posting about it... This proposal permits slavery. The definition of 'terrible criminal' can differ, in some countries it could be as simple as shoplifting. The definition of that could use work. No civil rights is too much, that takes away their status as human beings. Civil rights are worded in a way, as to allow criminals to be imprisioned for the good of humanity, however, criminals should still get civil rights such as the right of religion, free speech, blah blah blah. As its been said here before, this resolution would also be a barrier to free enterprise. While it might be good for communism and dictatorships, democracy would be harmed by this proposal, as jobs are being removed to take advantage of the cheap labor.

I apologize. For some reason I thought that I included "campaign against it" under my second point. Looking back, I realize that I left it out.
No problem.

However, Henrytopia didn't provide any debate here. No, I'm not stating that anyone who feels a proposal is bad should resign, I'm stating that they should debate the proposal if they feel it contrasts with their views. Let me know of any points of debate you find in this:

It was a smart *ss remark, but satire has its place in debate as well. It certainly makes clear what the protest is and the reasoning for the protest. <shrug> You may not care for the way the person is posting their objection, but I clearly see it as an objection. The main points being that it will be rewritten so that its main objective is guised but still accessible and that it will be destructive to certain national economies. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

It was a smart *ss remark, but satire has its place in debate as well. It certainly makes clear what the protest is and the reasoning for the protest. <shrug> You may not care for the way the person is posting their objection, but I clearly see it as an objection. The main points being that it will be rewritten so that its main objective is guised but still accessible and that it will be destructive to certain national economies. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

It seems to me like Henrytopia's post was a complaint against the UN as a whole, and not this resolution in particular. That's why I suggested leaving the UN.

Well, perhaps in part it was a complaint about some of the things that get proposed and passed - perhaps it is valid in that respect and perhaps it is not. That doesn't mean it isn't tied to the proposal it is directed against. It also doesn't cancel out the specific statement that spiffying up the proposal doesn't change the fact that it is still advocating slavery and will have a negative economic impact. Do you not see these two points in the statement?

Well, perhaps in part it was a complaint about some of the things that get proposed and passed - perhaps it is valid in that respect and perhaps it is not. That doesn't mean it isn't tied to the proposal it is directed against. It also doesn't cancel out the specific statement that spiffying up the proposal doesn't change the fact that it is still advocating slavery and will have a negative economic impact. Do you not see these two points in the statement?
I concede a complaint about economic impact, but only directed to the UN as a whole. I do not see a point arguing against the slavery issue, or any issue specific to this proposal. Henrytopia implies that a majority of the resolutions passed by the UN have a negative economic impact, but doesn't state how this resolution would cause that. Yes, I know this resolution would have such an impact (just for the record, I am vehemently against this proposal) and I know that other nations made points about that, but Henrytopia didn't use any of those points, or even allude to them, in his post.

I concede a complaint about economic impact, but only directed to the UN as a whole. I do not see a point arguing against the slavery issue, or any issue specific to this proposal. Henrytopia implies that a majority of the resolutions passed by the UN have a negative economic impact, but doesn't state how this resolution would cause that. Yes, I know this resolution would have such an impact (just for the record, I am vehemently against this proposal) and I know that other nations made points about that, but Henrytopia didn't use any of those points, or even allude to them, in his post.
Granted, specifics were not used. And yes, a general feeling of pessimism regarding UN proposals in general. Still think the old "don't like it, leave" approach doesn't accomplish much. It might be a better idea to ask for clarification or an expansion of their thoughts. And for the record, I don't much care for this proposal either.

My nation does not agree with even the idea of this proposal. I don't agree with using criminals as slaves, and I also think it should be up to the individual nation - based on their economy - whether they should used prisoners as cheap labour.

National crime = national punishment.