NationStates Jolt Archive

The wording is thus:

Eradication of Poverty
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kavenna

Description: WHEREAS, the presence of poverty constitutes a grave failure of the charity of nations one to another;

WHEREAS, poverty breeds terrorism and increases the danger of Rogue Nations coming into existence;

WHEREAS, it has been estimated that extreme poverty could be eliminated by a concerted effort of developed nations; be it

RESOLVED that each nation in the United Nations, by scared oath of promote democracy, freedom, and equal opportunity, shall pledge 0.5% of its GNP to the eradication of poverty in the world.

Please approve of this proposal so we can all work together for a better, more equal world!

-High Triunviral Councillor Tarul Thevarou of Kavenna

I don't think this will fly. Although we are a humanitarian nation, and committed to programs such as disaster relief and distributing medical aid, this resolution encroaches too much on national sovereignty and FORCES nations to be charitable.

Furthermore, nobody is going to like having to "babysit" other nations. What if a nation becomes impoverished because they spend 90% of their GDP on the military? Saint Uriel does not want to have to feed their children while they buy nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this is not an extreme scenario as there are many real life precedents for it.

Finally, it places an unfair burden on UN member nations. As I read the proposal, the GDP contributions will be used to fight poverty in all nations, not just UN members. Since a UN resolution is only enforcable in UN nations, this would mean that nations outside the UN would not have to contribute. That's unacceptable.

The intention of fighting poverty is a noble one, but I'm sorry, I don't believe this resolution is the way to do it.

Excellent idea, but unrealistic for a variety of reasons and unworkable for others. Cwruland will not subsidize other nations' military spending, and this resolution would almost certainly result in that (many nations have poverty because they allocate their resources poorly). In addition, we already engage in extensive legitimate charitable giving, monitored by our own government; this proposal is therefore pointless to us.

Sorry, but you don't have our support.

Half a percentage point of 38,043 nations GNP comes to an approximate funding of 2 Quadrillion USD equivalent.

With no control over the fundings, we see this amount being blown in a relatively short time - then again, nations are not told in what time period to give "0.5% of their GNP", so we are going to give one USD equivalent yearly for the next billion or so years.

Finally - so we give money. This solves the problem how?

Ill thought out, no teeth, does not solve the problem.

No support.

Hijacked comments removed to http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422589

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split_sm.jpg

I would like to thank everyone for their comments. I will take them into consideration and revise the proposal substantially. I wrote it a month ago, when I first joined, and when I reread it I realize how stupid it sounds. Thank you again.

I wouldn't call it stupid at all, Kavenna. Its well intentioned and has some very good ideas. As you know, the only way to learn is to play. We all had to learn (well, some of us never have). When I first came here, I got into this incrediably stupid argument with Krioval, whom I was lucky did not flame me out of existence. Now, I know what the UN rules are and how to better debate.

The fact that you are willing to accept constructive criticism and start over on your proposal speaks volumes for you. Please, continue working and playing here, and continue to come up with proposals. I think we'll all be very lucky to have you as a part of the NSUN.

I just want to congratulate Kavenna on spelling "rogue" correctly. :)

I just want to congratulate Kavenna on spelling "rogue" correctly. :)

Aye, we all do remember the attacks of the make-up states.

Description: WHEREAS, the presence of poverty constitutes a grave failure of the charity of nations one to another;

It also constitutes poor decisions made by either the people in poverty in a nation or the nation itself.

WHEREAS, poverty breeds terrorism and increases the danger of Rogue Nations coming into existence;

So does religion, politics, and hundreds of other items. Poverty is just an excuse utilized by people to try to justify to themselves what they are doing.

WHEREAS, it has been estimated that extreme poverty could be eliminated by a concerted effort of developed nations; be it

Poverty is best handled by the nation that has it. After all, why should we reward bad decisions?

RESOLVED that each nation in the United Nations, by scared oath of promote democracy, freedom, and equal opportunity, shall pledge 0.5% of its GNP to the eradication of poverty in the world.

We do not believe that promoting equal opportunity is a realistic goal. People are not equal. Some have more skill than others, and for that they are rewarded. If promoting a chance to achieve, we must point out it is bad decisions that caused the problem in the first place.

Really, I see no reason why we should have something on the books mandating that we help other nations.

We'll help! Just give us all your stuff, and we'll take care of you.

Anyone? Anyone?

* Hands Vastiva our stuff *

{ ... wait a minute, we're not even in the UN ... }

* Grabs our stuff back from Vastiva *

* Hands Vastiva our stuff *

{ ... wait a minute, we're not even in the UN ... }

* Grabs our stuff back from Vastiva *

Hey. It works.

Even got Mod stuff! Wow!

RESOLVED that each nation in the United Nations, by scared oath of promote democracy, freedom, and equal opportunity, shall pledge 0.5% of its GNP to the eradication of poverty in the world.

0.5% of our GDP (OOC Note: I don't use NS stats) is C4.3 billion (OOC: $43 billion USD). Mandating that we give up that money (which could be used to build schools, hospitals, roads, subways, etc.) does not sit well with us, especially considering that where the money will be spent is not specified. We are not afraid to fund UN projects, but we have to be assured that our money will be put to good use and will not be wasted.

We would consider it of great value to get to know how this money is suppposed to spent, how to organize the eradication of poverty with it.

We do not believe that promoting equal opportunity is a realistic goal. People are not equal. Some have more skill than others, and for that they are rewarded. If promoting a chance to achieve, we must point out it is bad decisions that caused the problem in the first place.
Equal opportunity is a realistic goal, equality is not. If everyone has the same chance to succeed, that is good, those who are better at certain things will distinguish themselves.

If there is no equality of opportunity then someone going to a crap school or not given the opportunity to showcase their skills will be condemned to doing something that does not suit their skills. This is why equality of opportunity is good and equality is not.

Equal opportunity is a realistic goal, equality is not. If everyone has the same chance to succeed, that is good, those who are better at certain things will distinguish themselves.

Except that those who are better will also advance faster, showing that equal opportunity does not actually exist.

If there is no equality of opportunity then someone going to a crap school or not given the opportunity to showcase their skills will be condemned to doing something that does not suit their skills. This is why equality of opportunity is good and equality is not.

There is a difference between true equal opportunity and simply advancing those who show themselves to have the best skills for the job.

Well... we're all for giving equal tools, but we have no problems with leaving someone who decides a wrech is best used to skritch his arse in the dust.

We see nothing equal in any set of people - and we accept this as a truth. We are not going to communisticly assign that everyone receive equal fruits for their labor - we are simply going to allow equal access to the tools and training.

What each does with that is up to them. And if you cannot meet the standards for an area of higher learning intellectually, you are not going to go there.

Money has nothing to do with it in Vastiva.