NationStates Jolt Archive

The proposal of my nation, the Most Serene Republic of Potomacia, repeals the "40 Hour Work Week" Resolution, #59, and restores contractual obligations as the bedrock of commercial relations within and among states. I call upon all regional UN delegates to approve my proposal so the UN General Assembly may pass judgment on the principle of economic liberty.

Argument: Recognizing that human liberty extends to industry as well as society,

Affirming the principles of individual sovereignty and that foundation of society, the contract,

Observing that government regulations concerning the work week have led to slackened economic growth and therefore a decrease in national prosperity and sustainable development

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby:

1. Repeals in full UN Resolution #59

2. Declares that contracts between employee and employer are sufficient to govern commerce, labor, and industry

3. Urges all member nations to fully respect economic freedom as well as social freedom

4. Re-affirms the legitimate power of sovereign states to regulate commerce insofar as such regulation is necessary to protect individuals from harm

no

You have no proof or justification to your "observation". Made-up stuff belongs in roleplaying nations but not in the United Nations Resolutions.

Well put, Pojonian Puppet.

Since when is the contract the foundation of society? Its a fairly recent invention in the course of human history.

As much as I love the benign tyranny of robber-barons, I believe workers have the right to even the playing field with corporations by enacting social legislation (at whatever level).

You'd hard put to point to any empirical evidence that a 40-hour workweek dampens economic growth.

I have noticed that 3 nations have expressed their disapproval of my tenet that contracts are foundational in society and also the observation thatplacing an arbitrary cap on working hours weakens national economies. Also, when did the UN arrogate to itself the power to decide the economic policy of nations? I would like to advise my ill-informed critics that I have based my observations on nations like France and Germany (real-world observations), and have found that nations like Germany have experienced SHRINKAGE in industrial and commercial growth due to limits on the work week. Also, the critics claim that social legislation (at the global level no less) is needed to protect workers. Let all be reminded that contracts of employment are freely agreed upon, legally binding documents that provide for labor and capital within nations. My proposal is based on the tenets of free will, contract theory, liberty in all spheres, and common sense. The critics have denigrated these, my values, as "recent." Let it be known that their values are even more recent, and let it also be known that contract theory is the basis on which the democracies of the world are built. The US Constitution is an example of this principle maligned by my critics. It is apparent that my critics frown upon too much freedom, and would rather set international regulations not only on individual freedom, but the legitimate exercise of national sovereignty. I stand amazed here today as the principles of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kant, Madison, and Jefferson are trampled upon by those whose ignorance blinds the intentions of the United Nations and leads this great body away from rational goals and legitimate pursuits. I call upon all UN members to re-affirm the principles of individual liberty and economic freedom and ingenuity against the naysayers who would drag down the human spirit and cast aspersions upon the wisdom of liberty.

OOC: I'm just wondering, Potomacia, if you realise that the 40 hour work week was put in place in nearly all western countries some hundred years ago.

Also, when did the UN arrogate to itself the power to decide the economic policy of nations? I would like to advise my ill-informed critics that I have based my observations on nations like France and Germany (real-world observations), and have found that nations like Germany have experienced SHRINKAGE in industrial and commercial growth due to limits on the work week.

So, I am ill-informed based, purely on your personal observations of RL Germany's economy. You are going to need to do a bit better than that.

Also, the critics claim that social legislation (at the global level no less) is needed to protect workers. Let all be reminded that contracts of employment are freely agreed upon, legally binding documents that provide for labor and capital within nations. My proposal is based on the tenets of free will, contract theory, liberty in all spheres, and common sense.

History and common sense both indicate that employers and employees do not freely negotiate contracts as equals. To the contrary, various labor laws have been passed to stop horrific labor practices. You cannot simply dismiss this history.

The critics have denigrated these, my values, as "recent." Let it be known that their values are even more recent, and let it also be known that contract theory is the basis on which the democracies of the world are built. The US Constitution is an example of this principle maligned by my critics.

Excuse me? Civilization dates back thousands of years. Most of the philosophers you cite below would agree that all political philosophy is footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. Nothing recent about any of that and the contract and free enterprise are late commoners to the game.

Why do you consider the US Consititution an example of a contract?

It is apparent that my critics frown upon too much freedom, and would rather set international regulations not only on individual freedom, but the legitimate exercise of national sovereignty.

Your critics love all kinds of freedom. But just as the US Supreme Court did as finally allowed labor laws, etc., the UN is free to recognize that social legislation may be more important to preserving human values that pure economic freedom.

I stand amazed here today as the principles of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kant, Madison, and Jefferson are trampled upon by those whose ignorance blinds the intentions of the United Nations and leads this great body away from rational goals and legitimate pursuits.

Hold on their kid, I am a thorough student of those you name, as well as both more ancient and more recent poltical philosophers. It is not actually a given that UN must or should follow any of those political philosophies, but they do have appeal to most of us. Mere name-dropping is not going to get you anywhere, however. As I find little in the work of any of the philosophers you meantion that is inconsistent with a 40-hour work week. Jefferson, for example, envisioned a rural, farm-based nation without industry.

I call upon all UN members to re-affirm the principles of individual liberty and economic freedom and ingenuity against the naysayers who would drag down the human spirit and cast aspersions upon the wisdom of liberty.

Your hyperbole is steaming up my screen. Take a few breaths. Maybe have a beer and think before you post. (Hopefully not in all bold.)

If France and Germany are experiencing shrinkages, then they screwed up. DLE has had it for well over a century and has had an amazing economic growth rate. You might want to check and see if something besides just the length of the workweek is affecting them. If you want a real-world example, check the U.S.

As for when the UN said it could regulate economy: The moment its members said it could. Ain't democracy grand?

Ah, yes. I just got a telegram containing all of the information Cat-Tribe so efficiently takes apart, but had completely forgotten which proposal it was that I had commented on and was somewhat at a loss as to why so many angry, demented words had suddenly appeared on my screen. Now that I've found the proposal again, let's review:

I said this:
You have no proof or justification to your "observation". Made-up stuff belongs in roleplaying nations but not in the United Nations Resolutions.

You said this:

I have noticed that 3 nations have expressed their disapproval of my tenet that contracts are foundational in society and also the observation thatplacing an arbitrary cap on working hours weakens national economies. Also, when did the UN arrogate to itself the power to decide the economic policy of nations? I would like to advise my ill-informed critics that I have based my observations on nations like France and Germany (real-world observations), and have found that nations like Germany have experienced SHRINKAGE in industrial and commercial growth due to limits on the work week. Also, the critics claim that social legislation (at the global level no less) is needed to protect workers. Let all be reminded that contracts of employment are freely agreed upon, legally binding documents that provide for labor and capital within nations. My proposal is based on the tenets of free will, contract theory, liberty in all spheres, and common sense. The critics have denigrated these, my values, as "recent." Let it be known that their values are even more recent, and let it also be known that contract theory is the basis on which the democracies of the world are built. The US Constitution is an example of this principle maligned by my critics. It is apparent that my critics frown upon too much freedom, and would rather set international regulations not only on individual freedom, but the legitimate exercise of national sovereignty. I stand amazed here today as the principles of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kant, Madison, and Jefferson are trampled upon by those whose ignorance blinds the intentions of the United Nations and leads this great body away from rational goals and legitimate pursuits. I call upon all UN members to re-affirm the principles of individual liberty and economic freedom and ingenuity against the naysayers who would drag down the human spirit and cast aspersions upon the wisdom of liberty.

What you said, though very long and convoluted, does not make what I said untrue. Ambush me like with a telegram like that again and I swear I'll outword you.

"Arrogate". Psh. Who uses the word "Arrogate" in the English language nowadays?

There is no reason to believe that with the standard and traditional work hours people are being overworked. Obviously for many valuing efficiency is some kind of crime. Pathetic.

The freedom you want is not true freedom. Employers are almost always in a position of substantially greater power than employees, and so the employee or potential employee, whilst being technically free to determine the conditions of work through a voluntary contract, often cannot get a job with decent conditions unless government intervenes with legislation like that you wish to repeal.

Without this kind of legislation, employers can force a race to the bottom between those competing for a job, because someone will always be willing to work that little bit longer or for that bit less.

EDIT: Oh, and the contract was not "denigrated as being recent", it was merely pointed out that it is probably too recent to be considered the foundation of society, as you claim.

In response to the wonderfully civilized and cogent response to my last resolution to repeal #59, a new one has been issued simply repealing Resolution 59 and does not include any statements of principle. It needs to be approved by the regional delegates, so that the General Assembly may voice a final opinion on this matter, since Resolution 59 was passed by a margin of roughly 100, in a vote involving 17,000 nations.

No thanks.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Hey Giordano,


It's delegates like you who prevent meaningful change and discourse in the UN. Your "no thanks" was such a thoughtful and democratic response to valid and pressing issues.

I am sorry.

My only reason is that I'm in favour of the existing resolution. If my (UN member) region mates disagree I will support you.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

A simple repeal without explanation for its bases is worse than your original proposal.

I assume the repeal is still based on your mistaken premises, which you fail to defend.

Insulting those you disagree with you is not "thoughtful," "democratic," or "meaningful" discourse. Although you seem to think the issue is urgent and momentous, many delegates undoubtedly think your proposal is worth little more than a simple expression of disagreement. The burden is on you to persuade otherwise.

BTW, The Pojonian Puppet, I too recieved a word-for-word diatribe telegram as my reward for paying and seeking to engage in "meaningful discourse" with Potomacia.

This resolution speaks to stopping explotation, retaining a balance of power between workers and bosses, prevents legalized slavery and ensures that workers of the world are protected as they should be - as the key to each and every nation's sucess.

So I think I am going to oppose repealing it.

Everybody please understand that the UN contacted me and told me that a repeal could only list just that...a repeal....I am not allowed to change or suggest anything in my repeal....I would have to submit a separate proposal...I just would like the issue to be brought again before the General Assembly, so that the nations may vote on it again...other proposals will come along to address your concerns...please let us continue in civilized dialogue....I never mentioned anyone by name in the forum...but I have been personally derogated... I want an honest discussion...and I will have it no other way....therefore those nations who continue to rail against me...please again remember that a repeal can only be a repeal and that I did not mean in any way to become an enemy....let this discussion proceed amicably

Everybody please understand that the UN contacted me and told me that a repeal could only list just that...a repeal....I am not allowed to change or suggest anything in my repeal....I would have to submit a separate proposal...I just would like the issue to be brought again before the General Assembly, so that the nations may vote on it again...other proposals will come along to address your concerns...please let us continue in civilized dialogue....I never mentioned anyone by name in the forum...but I have been personally derogated... I want an honest discussion...and I will have it no other way....therefore those nations who continue to rail against me...please again remember that a repeal can only be a repeal and that I did not mean in any way to become an enemy....let this discussion proceed amicably

The problem is if this is repealed, there is no way to ensure another one will be passed. Also this is one of the better resolutions.

So I still oppose it.

TilEnca, that is fine....you must believe strongly in the resolution....I believe in that it infringes on national economic policy. I also consider it to be a very controversial resolution...and since it was only passed by a margin of some 100 votes out of 17,000, I think that it is perfectly legitimate to present the issue before the United Nations.


Thanks for your input

First, it is common and allowed to give arguments in clauses of a repeal.

Second, I'll reply directly to you regarding nature of this dialogue. In the meantime, I will endeavor to stick to the merits (or lack thereof) of your proposal.

I note you have not respond to the substance of any of the arguments raised against your proposal.

I stand by those who do not want the resolution repealed or brought for another vote.

We gave you our criticism, you insulted us. We pointed out that your insulting us does not have anything to do with our criticism, and you insulted us again (Well, I have another short and snippy telegram, at least). Repeals in themselves are already widely despised - if you don't have a responsive argument to everything that we say, your repeal isn't ever going to make it to the floor.

TilEnca, that is fine....you must believe strongly in the resolution....I believe in that it infringes on national economic policy. I also consider it to be a very controversial resolution...and since it was only passed by a margin of some 100 votes out of 17,000, I think that it is perfectly legitimate to present the issue before the United Nations.


Thanks for your input

I am not saying you should not present it. I never said that. I just think you are wrong :}

Also - are you aware that this resolution was the subject of a repeal that made it to the floor? That a repeal of this resolution was voted on less than ten weeks ago? And that the said repeal was defeated by around 2000 votes?


Argument: Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work without interference from the United Nations.

The consequences of Resolution #59 are the opposite of the aims. The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare.


Votes For: 8,641
Votes Against: 10,349

Voting Ended: Sun Dec 19 2004


There is still strong support for the resolution. And given that while it might screw with economic policy, it prevents slavery and stops explotation, I think it does WAY more good than harm, which is why I think you are wrong about your reasons for attempting a repeal. Which is not to say I don't think you should attempt it - I just don't think it will work :}

I am not saying you should not present it. I never said that. I just think you are wrong :}

...

Which is not to say I don't think you should attempt it - I just don't think it will work :}

Y'know (admittedly off-topic), I've always thought those ":}" smileys were cool.

[EDIT] I would use them myself, but they're such a signature of TilEnca, I'd feel like a copycat. A well-smiley-ed copycap, but still a copycat.

Y'know (admittedly off-topic), I've always thought those ":}" smileys were cool.

[EDIT] I would use them myself, but they're such a signature of TilEnca, I'd feel like a copycat. A well-smiley-ed copycap, but still a copycat.

(smirk) Equally off topic, but they started because on a BBS I used to frequent ":) " was an escape sequence for something. So I started with :} instead.

But thank you anyway :}

The reason that I am arguing for the repeal of Resolution 59 is primarily aimed at protecting national sovereignty. Resolutions banning slavery and ensuring basic human rights already passed by the UN will prevent employers from harming employees. However, having the UN set economic policy that has always been within the purview of the state is a step towards an unprecendented centralization of power. The UN should support human rights, condemn abuses committed by both government and employer alike. However, the UN should set basic standards of human rights for nations to follow. I firmly believe that policies consonant with those standards must be left to the sovereign nations to formulate. Resolution 59 sets a final cap at 40 hours, and also it declares that no one can voluntarily work overtime over 80 hours a week. I agree that the underpinnings of the overtime clause are rational, but they nevertheless violate individual liberty. Any citizen of any state should be able to work as long as he or she sees fit, in accordance with the contract of employment. I agree that poverty leads to economic helplessness and vulnerability to the powerful. Therefore, the UN should foster sustainable development in all member nations, encourage free trade, provide assistance to poorer nations to initiate education and job-creation. However, the nature of these policies would of course be left to the nations to implement. I am proposing that we allow nations to implement human rights imperatives according to their own culture and abilities. I am proposing that we look hard at the resolutions we pass and stay ever mindful of how our good intentions can sometimes drain states of both political and economic capital. Let the repeal go to the floor, let the importance of national sovereignty be judged.

Resolutions banning slavery and ensuring basic human rights already passed by the UN will prevent employers from harming employees


But if this resolution is repealed then there would be nothing to stop me saying that all workers must work 23 hour day, 7 days a week. That overtime is now illegal and that the company can decide what someone deserves paying based on their performance, even if it means the employee only gets 1 copper piece a week (the average salary for manual workers is around 200 gp a week, and 1 copper piece is worth 1/100th of 1 gp, to give you an idea).

The employee is free to quit any time he wants, so it is not slavery in the sense of the Anti-Slavery resolution. And they are getting paid, so it is still not slavery.

So despite the fact the UN has banned slavery within its member nations, I could still pretty much treat all my employees as slaves, and yet not be in violation of the law, once this resolution is repealed.

As I said - it may screw with the economics of a country, but it does far more good than people may realise.

I will now publicly apologize on the forum to anyone possibly offended by my rash comments. I will try my best to respond as well as I can to any concerns or opinions brought to this forum. Thank you for the continued dialogue.

TilEnca, I am arguing that the UN limiting the work week is a dangerous precedent concerning the accumulation of power by the UN at the expense of sovereign nations. We should propose resolutions supporting human rights, giving aid to poorer nations, encouraging education. Also, if we continue to free the markets in this world, wages cannot be set by corrupt employers or governement officials. That is why most International Relations professors will agree, some reluctantly, that the spread of free markets increases wages and nurtures a gradual move to income equality. Today in China, income per capita, although still much less than the US, is increasing steadily. Instead of placing barriers on free trade, we should encourage its expansion, and push nations to allow markets to open. Citizens in the Caribbean that suffer from sweatshop work are victims of corrupt governments and the lack of economic transparency. It is time that, instead of tightening economic controls, the UN focuses on battling corruption, maximizing transparency, expanding the rule of law across the world, and allowing market forces (which, in Microeconomics is defined as being so large, that no company can affect them) to gradually increase national prosperity and steadily equalize income throughout the world. Free markets are not the enemy...human rights abusers, corrupt governments and companies, and ignorance are. I wish to repeal Resolution 59 so that international prosperity will be felt by all. Nations should be pushed to open their markets and protect their people, not be coerced to protect their people from markets. People must be protected against manipulation by corrupt human actors, not the blind forces of the market.

This is exactly why a mentioned robber-barons in my first post.

I admit my knowledge of the RL economic history of other nations is spotty, but the RL history of the US makes clear that the free market has little consideration for workers. Labor laws were enacted in the US precisely because workers were exploited. Even unionization was insufficient response to the power of corporations.

I find it interesting you consider free enterprise and freedom of contract to be essential to liberty but you do not extend similar respect to basic rights of workers. I flatly disagree.

Much of the rest of what you say is not particularly relevant to NS's UN (as opposed to RL UN.) Maybe you could convince us if, instead of tearing down existing UN resolutions, you proposed some of the resolutions who suggest the UN should focus on.

TilEnca, I am arguing that the UN limiting the work week is a dangerous precedent concerning the accumulation of power by the UN at the expense of sovereign nations. We should propose resolutions supporting human rights, giving aid to poorer nations, encouraging education. Also, if we continue to free the markets in this world, wages cannot be set by corrupt employers or governement officials. That is why most International Relations professors will agree, some reluctantly, that the spread of free markets increases wages and nurtures a gradual move to income equality. Today in China, income per capita, although still much less than the US, is increasing steadily. Instead of placing barriers on free trade, we should encourage its expansion, and push nations to allow markets to open. Citizens in the Caribbean that suffer from sweatshop work are victims of corrupt governments and the lack of economic transparency. It is time that, instead of tightening economic controls, the UN focuses on battling corruption, maximizing transparency, expanding the rule of law across the world, and allowing market forces (which, in Microeconomics is defined as being so large, that no company can affect them) to gradually increase national prosperity and steadily equalize income throughout the world. Free markets are not the enemy...human rights abusers, corrupt governments and companies, and ignorance are. I wish to repeal Resolution 59 so that international prosperity will be felt by all. Nations should be pushed to open their markets and protect their people, not be coerced to protect their people from markets. People must be protected against manipulation by corrupt human actors, not the blind forces of the market.

And I am arguing that defence of human rights superceeds economic concerns.

That is why most International Relations professors will agree, some reluctantly, that the spread of free markets increases wages and nurtures a gradual move to income equality... Citizens in the Caribbean that suffer from sweatshop work are victims of corrupt governments and the lack of economic transparency. It is time that, instead of tightening economic controls, the UN focuses on battling corruption, maximizing transparency, expanding the rule of law across the world, and allowing market forces to gradually increase national prosperity and steadily equalize income throughout the world. Free markets are not the enemy...human rights abusers, corrupt governments and companies, and ignorance are. I wish to repeal Resolution 59 so that international prosperity will be felt by all. Nations should be pushed to open their markets and protect their people, not be coerced to protect their people from markets. People must be protected against manipulation by corrupt human actors, not the blind forces of the market.


[Presume any RL references to be OOC]
Yes the free market will increase prosperity (for the majority, but not all), etc, but do not be so naive as to think that the liberal system, without regulation of some sort, would not exploit. Even if highly liberalised countries such as the US or UK were not to have such workers rights legislation, then corporations would run roughshod over its workers. And economic gain doesn't justify this.

We have all agreed that slavery is wrong. But without laws protecting the workers, they will be treated as quasi-slaves, working as many hours as they can for as low a wage as they can get away with. The free market unregulated would reward the companies with the lowest scruples really. Therefore regulation is required. And when it involves basic human rights, which the resolution does deal with, then there is a need for international regulation, to regulate the international economy.