NationStates Jolt Archive

I have re-submitted my repeal for "Education for all". Hopefully, this time it can jump the gap from the 120 some approvals it got last (in tandum with the Required Basic Healthcare repeal) to quorum.

It can be found with a search for "educ" on the "List proposals" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/89373/page=UN_proposal) page.

Or, and this is a little less reliable you could use a direct hyperlink: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/pin=78089373/page=UN_proposal/start=5 Updated Thursday, 1:44pm GMT.

Here's the text. Please approve.

Repeal "Education For All"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #3
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: UN Resolution #3: Education For All (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the merits of "Education For All" and the ideals behind it,

MAINTAINING the principle of free education for youth in member nations,

RECALLING "Free Education" implemented August 19, 2003,

ADMITTING "Education For All" as redundant due to the implementation of "Free Education",

DECLARING itself against waste and bureaucracy:

REPEALS "Education For All", originally implemented January 8, 2003.

Voting Ends: Thu Feb 17 2005


Please approve this repeal, or telegram your regional delegates about it.

Thank you for your time,

Powerhungry Chipmunks

Approved

I see little point to this. I do not see any waste or bureaucracy, except for that created by repealing the resolution.

My opinion - wasting the UN's valuable time.

I see little point to this. I do not see any waste or bureaucracy, except for that created by repealing the resolution.

My opinion - wasting the UN's valuable time.

I appreciate your opinion, and understand a similar argument held by some I've telegrammed: this will only increase waste by another UN resolution being added. however I believe it to be worthwhile the addition of one resolution (should this reach quorum and pass) as opposed to UN wide where laws enforcing resolution 3 are still being forced upon UN nations unnecessarily.

Besides that, to rid the UN of repeated resolutions we elevate the quality of the UN and keep ourselves from giving newer members the wrong impression as to what is allowed in a propsal (If one were to judge whether or not it is illegal to repeat legislation using the current list of passed resolutions one would probably conclude that it is legal; it isn't).

Either way, I appreciate greatly you opinion. The UN forum needs active participation from as many members as possible to be effective.

Thanks!

As I mentioned in my telegram, this resolution acts as a safeguard for education - if one of the education resolutions is repealed, then anyone who wishes to get rid of the ideal entirely will have to go through even more trouble to get rid of the second. Bureaucracy is not always a bad thing (save when you're trying to spell it), it can help to protect a minority opinion that I most certainly consider valid.

Also, I think the argument you just gave against EC was somewhat non-responsive. 37,000 nations already have laws based around this resolution - to take it out would create a bureaucratic tangle absent of benefits as nations are forced to change the wordings of their laws to accomplish the exact same thing. Whether or not we're setting an example isn't really the issue here, unless you put that into the proposal. If it's illegal, the moderators delete it, but even so there are many other repetitious resolutions that I would prefer to see deleted than this one. Fight bureaucracy on a resolution that doesn't deal with civil rights, and maybe you'll garner more support for your repeal.

Krioval approves this measure. I see no reason why a "significant" resolution supporting social justice should be considered such, as it at best provides a backup for a more stringent resolution. Thus, it has no "significant" impact, and the laws of member nations should be amended to alleviate the unnecessary restrictions placed upon them by Resolution Three.

Lord Darvek Tyvok
Kriovalian Ambassador to the UN

Whether or not we're setting an example isn't really the issue here, unless you put that into the proposal. If it's illegal, the moderators delete it, but even so there are many other repetitious resolutions that I would prefer to see deleted than this one.

I am grateful for hearing your preference of other repetitions. I inform Pojonia that I have a repeal of "Required Basic Healthcare" which I'll be submitting if/when this one reaches quorum (I'll hopefully use the votes/approvals of this one as a basis for telegramming for RBH).Perhaps Pojonia will agree more with that repeal.

Also, I think the argument you just gave against EC was somewhat non-responsive. 37,000 nations already have laws based around this resolution - to take it out would create a bureaucratic tangle absent of benefits as nations are forced to change the wordings of their laws to accomplish the exact same thing.

I disagree. Every time the legal code concerning free education is reproduced in Powerhungry Chipmunks "Education For All" requires a certain amount of space and time and resources on that reproduction. If it were repealed "Education For All" would take up no space, time, or resources in Powerhungry Chipmunks. That's a net decrease of required resources.

As I mentioned in my telegram, this resolution acts as a safeguard for education - if one of the education resolutions is repealed, then anyone who wishes to get rid of the ideal entirely will have to go through even more trouble to get rid of the second. Bureaucracy is not always a bad thing (save when you're trying to spell it), it can help to protect a minority opinion that I most certainly consider valid.

As nice as it is to have a "safeguard" for education, I believe it's entirely unnecessary. The minority opinion here is actually those that think both resolutions need to go; they failed to make a resolution on the matter fail twice. Democracy isn't a cudgel to pound your opponent‘s head with—via multiple resolutions which say the same thing. The bureaucracy here is protecting no one except those untrusting of the UN’s ability to democratically decide what warrants international protection and what doesn’t. To me, that’s just wasting the UN's time.

UN resolutions are here mainly to decide what matters merit immunity from national decision--what we won't let nations decide on their own because their so important. If the UN changes its mind about free education then I think, it'd be the only democratic and just thing that the resolution (the one resolution) securing it be repealed. This would be fully democratic and just. It most probably will never happen. That knowledge is enough for me. My government, for one, doesn't have the will to commit our resources (our legal resources, mostly) towards other countries' insecurities about democracy.

If the UN changes its mind about free education then I think, it'd be the only democratic and just thing that the resolution (the one resolution) securing it be repealed. This would be fully democratic and just.

If democracy decrees that children should not be guaranteed free education, then I do not believe that the democratic will of the electorate should be observed. No action can be made right just because it is desired by the majority.

Approved

As free education is the cornerstone of enlightening ones people i am firmly against any threat to remove this basic egalitarian right. free education for all means exactly that and to remove this with out having a replacement for it is unacceptable. It is by free education for all that ones peoples can improove their environment both socially and physically. An increased ability to read and basic math skills adds benifits to a nation as the people are gennerally more willing to work harder and with a higher than average educated work force investment is almost garunteed, especially in the more economically and ecolologically friendly businesses such as reasearch and developement, Information technology and high tech manufacture.

Its likely i will ask our new Delegate and the peoples of the Realm of hibernia to vote against this one.

President Murphy.

As free education is the cornerstone of enlightening ones people i am firmly against any threat to remove this basic egalitarian right. free education for all means exactly that and to remove this with out having a replacement for it is unacceptable. It is by free education for all that ones peoples can improove their environment both socially and physically. An increased ability to read and basic math skills adds benifits to a nation as the people are gennerally more willing to work harder and with a higher than average educated work force investment is almost garunteed, especially in the more economically and ecolologically friendly businesses such as reasearch and developement, Information technology and high tech manufacture.

Its likely i will ask our new Delegate and the peoples of the Realm of hibernia to vote against this one.

President Murphy.

You didn't really read the repeal proposal and argument before posting this, did you?

MAINTAINING the principle of free education for youth in member nations,
You didn't really read the repeal proposal and argument before posting this, did you?

In fact i did read the repeal and i am afraid the word MAINTAINING does not reassure me. Words dear boy are important and i would like this clarified.

He's saying, my dear boy, that he feels that it is vital to maintain the principle of free education for children. However, the resolution he's trying to repeal is basically nullified by a future resolution, and here's why:

RECALLING "Free Education" implemented August 19, 2003,

ADMITTING "Education For All" as redundant due to the implementation of "Free Education",
You see, the first resolution guaranteed free education for people up to the age of 16; the most recent resolution guarantees free education for people up to the age of 18. Therefore, the old one is redundant and unnecessary.

(PC, feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting you at any time)

Redundant and unnecessary, but not worth getting rid of pragmatically and directly against a lot of ideals philosophically.

I disagree. Every time the legal code concerning free education is reproduced in Powerhungry Chipmunks "Education For All" requires a certain amount of space and time and resources on that reproduction. If it were repealed "Education For All" would take up no space, time, or resources in Powerhungry Chipmunks. That's a net decrease of required resources
Firstly, if the second resolution makes the first redundant, you don't have to mention the first at all because you cover it by talking about the second. You don't have to mention U.N. resolutions in your laws at all, just as long as those laws abide by the resolutions.
Secondly, resources? You don't need any more resources to write in a small piece of legislature even if you disagree with the first point and say that it has to be written in.
Thirdly, cutting a few sentences from your legal code is not a good enough reason to push a repeal. Personally, I don't think it's a problem, but looking at it from a wider political scope... I don't think it's a problem. Your energy could be better devoted to something else, perhaps a resolution designed to reduce bureaucracy in some other format. Repeals are nice, but I think they should be reserved for the resolutions that actually deserve it before you even think about repealing the redundant ones, which have no actual ill effects.

We still support this.

Firstly, if the second resolution makes the first redundant, you don't have to mention the first at all because you cover it by talking about the second. You don't have to mention U.N. resolutions in your laws at all, just as long as those laws abide by the resolutions.
Secondly, resources? ...

[snip]


The interaction between the UN compliance ministry and individual nations is a foggy are between RP and game mechanics which I, at best, can only make a few conclusive statements about. One thing I know is the UN gnomes enact their laws in my nation very mechanically. They don't use 'logic sensors' which would otherwise tell them "you don't have to codify this resolution law as it is already covered" (in the actual order, since Education for all was first, "You just have to modify the preexisting law")

Another thing I know for certain is that the number of resolutions new members must acquaint themselves with is only going to grow. The redunancy of these two is not only a bad example to new members, but it doesn't help them in their quest to understand which resolutions have been passed--so they can write legal (non-contradictory, non-repeating) proposals. At one time being a young proposal writer myself, I'd like this confusion cleared up. And, as a prestigious, professional body, the UN needs to keep its resolutions at least slightly organized.

Personally, I don't think it's a problem, but looking at it from a wider political scope... I don't think it's a problem. Your energy could be better devoted to something else, perhaps a resolution designed to reduce bureaucracy in some other format. Repeals are nice, but I think they should be reserved for the resolutions that actually deserve it before you even think about repealing the redundant ones, which have no actual ill effects.

As much fun as it is for me to write resolutions based on independent issues, I find that I'm not very good at it. Reformed Literacy Initiative and Nucla Terra were my stabs at implementing well thought out legislation--regardless of how successful or disastrous as those may be judged in history, I'm not sure I have the desire to go through that drafting and hassle any more. I may do one more real "resolution" (as opposed to repeals), perhaps to straighten out public domain, or in some artistic/musical area. But that's an entirely different realm of discussion. Right now, I'm focusing on repealing legislation that's outdated in comparison to modern conventions of redundancy.

In fact i did read the repeal and i am afraid the word MAINTAINING does not reassure me. Words...are important and i would like this clarified.

You're correct that MAINTAINING doesn't carry behind it the full legal force the UN can wield. But it doesn't have to. I put it in there mainly as a rhetorical device to save time when telegramming--upon reading the proposal delegates would realize that I'm not interested in ridding us of free education. This repeal of "Education For All" is not intended to be in contradiction of the ideas behind it, but in its position as a UN resolution considering resolutions since: I think it's just not needed now taht later resolutions have secured free education even further.

I assure you, as much as I possibly can, that this is not an attempt to replace a strong, forceful decree of free education with a more pansy "MAINTAINING".

Thanks to all who have participated. Keep participating, please. If you agree with the resolution please approve it or ask your regional delegate to approve it.

Thank you for your time.

If democracy decrees that children should not be guaranteed free education, then I do not believe that the democratic will of the electorate should be observed. No action can be made right just because it is desired by the majority.

Very true. A decree from even the purest democracy is never a decree of absolute 'rightness' or 'wrongness'. It's only a more accurate depiction of the relative 'rightness' or 'wrongness' an issue has in the eyes of the people within that democracy. In order to sharpen the lense through which this democracy reflects the beliefs of its members, I feel one "side" cannot be repressed--as would be the case if we were to keep this resolution around 'just in case' the other got repealed.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has approved this repeal.

Tosser Land has approved the repeal with reservations that it is not really necessary to repeal this.

In order to sharpen the lense through which this democracy reflects the beliefs of its members, I feel one "side" cannot be repressed--as would be the case if we were to keep this resolution around 'just in case' the other got repealed.

Ah, you see we have different aims. You want the will of majority implemented, we would rather have what we believe to be right occur.

Delegates, please approve this repeal

Here's an updated hyperlink: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/73569/page=UN_proposal/start=15 (it's toward the bottom).

Only 17 more approvals needed!

Please approve this repeal!

Here's an updated hyperlink: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=UN_proposal/start=5

Thank you for your time,

Powerhungry Chipmunks

I still don't see why it's necessary to do this. If it makes it to the floor (which I think it will) then I'll probably vote for it, but I'm not going to spend extra time approving it.

I think it needs one more approval as of two minutes ago.

Repeal of Education and Right to Self-Protection both made quorum on the same day!

Am I right in thinking that's rare?

Repeal of Education and Right to Self-Protection both made quorum on the same day!

Am I right in thinking that's rare?

Yeah. I suppose so.

Repeal of Education and Right to Self-Protection both made quorum on the same day!

Am I right in thinking that's rare?
I did massive telegraphing on Rights and Duties of UN States. It was In Queue by itself for a while, then the three proposals above it got Approved to the point that it actually dropped to fourth (which is how, IMHO, the crappy proposals "Passport Harmonisation", "Definition of 'Fair Trial'", and "Save the Forests of the World" made Quorum). I think Rights and Duties had over 350 Approvals when it finally hit the floor 9 or 10 days later.

So yeah, I've seen four at once.