NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry if there is a topic on this already, but I couldn't find one.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Caradune

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED by the number of children who do not have basic information technology education,

-B- CONVINCED that the mastering of Information Technology is essential in the education of every child worldwide and for his/her own future

-C- FULLY AWARE of the difference of technology level between member nations

-D- SEEKING to minimize the cost of the following clauses

-E- FULLY AWARE of the availability of cheap, basic and low power-consumption computers designed by non-profit organizations


-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to secure that each child, aged at least 12, receive some information technology education adapted to the national technology level. This can be integrated into National Education programs,

-2- ENCOURAGES STRONGLY all nations to secure for every child, aged at least 12, some access in school to information technology school equipment with educational software and Internet access,

-3- SUPPORTS operations which provide children, personal computers with Internet access and educational software, or more powerful high-tech educational tool, when the cost for the Nations will not be significant. Computers, Internet access or others tools could be bought or rented at a very modest price for children not able to afford them

-4- RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts

-5- ENCOURAGES all Nations to try to limit the cost induced by this resolution, by different means such as:

-5.1- providing cheap, basic and low power-consumption computers designed by non-profit organization as those that already exist

-5.2- Running the computers mentioned in this resolution with needed open-source software, freeware or software graciously paid or discounted by companies, as a sponsoring operation for them or by non-profit organization

-5.3- Proposing some non-profit organization or some companies to graciously offer some computers, internet access and technical support, as a sponsoring operation for them which can prove more efficient than a TV ad campaign

-6- ENCOURAGES all developed Nations to help developing Nations to implement this program, by different means such as:

-6.1- Sharing technologies with nations who don't have yet access to them

-6.2- Giving access to these nations to a low rate loan/bonds system, which will be repaid in middle term by the growth of the amount of taxes collected due to the growth of information technology economic sector

Co-authored by Love and esterel

I oppose. I tried to read the resolution, but fell asleep halfway through. When I woke up, I was gripey, and decided to vote against.

(And was the first person to do so!)

I oppose. I tried to read the resolution, but fell asleep halfway through. When I woke up, I was gripey, and decided to vote against.

(And was the first person to do so!)

I am abstaining on this issue. it's nice, but feel that infringes on national soverignty too much.

Plus given a chance, Love and esterel would turn the whole UN into their fluffie vision of everyone being the same. Moreover, IT skills are irrelevent in nations where basic food, water and medical supplies are not available. Forcing nations to spend on IT may be hugely inappropriate.

I am abstaining on this issue. it's nice, but feel that infringes on national soverignty too much.

Plus given a chance, Love and esterel would turn the whole UN into their fluffie vision of everyone being the same. Moreover, IT skills are irrelevent in nations where basic food, water and medical supplies are not available. Forcing nations to spend on IT may be hugely inappropriate.

I agree.

As is my wont, I am opposed to micromanagement of the education system of the Federation, regardless of how appealing this idea will be to many nations and how palatable the authors tried to make it. This is similar to the stance taken on the "Sex Education Act" and "Right to Learn About Evolution".

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Now, granted I am new to this, but this does not appear to be binding in any way. What harm is there in voting for it, and saying, yea IT education is nice, and our children should have it?

Now, granted I am new to this, but this does not appear to be binding in any way. What harm is there in voting for it, and saying, yea IT education is nice, and our children should have it?That’s exactly the problem with the majority of UN members – a lot are “fluffie” voters – if it sounds nice and good, it’ll pass because most people don’t see a problem with it.

However, nations should be doing is balancing the proposal with the effects it has on their nation, and also the effects it has on other nations. In this case I said it’s bad for the reasons I listed. I’m rich, so Hirota can afford it. Poorer nations are poor, and can’t afford it.

But, thank you Orvillian for being intelligent enough to ask, and welcome to the UN.

I voted against this issue, in the nation of republisheepia all schools are privately owned and as such are in control of their own cirriculum save for some core requirements that they need to meet. As well, IT education is insufficient, I myself have 3 IT certifications and none of them taught me anything I had yet to learn. If you want to get into to teaching children technology what you need to do is teach them about basic functions of all operating systems and teach them about the world of open source. As well, the fact is that there aren't non-profit organistations making low-power machines. There are many corporations making economical machines but they're certainly not non-profit and certainly can't offer the prices affordable by the smaller countries.

Sorry if there is a topic on this already, but I couldn't find one.

Here is the topic:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452245

To find a topic you can use the search fonction at the TOP RIGHT of the UN forum

Here is the topic:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452245

To find a topic you can use the search fonction at the TOP RIGHT of the UN forum

Thanks for telling me how to wipe my arse. I hadn't realized you were going to be using that one, as it's a week old, and focussed on the deleted one, which might have confused some. Nonetheless, my apologies: should the mods find this thread, they should lock/merge/kill-stab-burn as appropriate.

I am abstaining on this issue. it's nice,

thanks

but feel that infringes on national soverignty too much.

Maybe you will told me which clause infringes on national sovereignty, the IT ed act doesn't requires, mandates or even declares anything.

And furthermore as the supermajorit of NSO members, who expressed theirselve, approved the #130 "Global Food Distribution Act" which requires the total elimination of tarrifs on food, sorry the natsov argument is no longer pertinent coming from NSO members


Plus given a chance, Love and esterel would turn the whole UN into their fluffie vision of everyone being the same.

The sex ed act was emphasing the differences and asymmetry between man and women sexuality
Adoption & IVF allow different couples (same same and steriles ones) to adopt or have a natural child

And we think nowadays it's becoming more and more important for child to have some IT knowledge and that this knowledge is becoming more and more "basic" as reading, writing and counting are

The repeal of solar panel prevented from probable economic damage

I fail to see the fluffie vision of everyone being the same


Moreover, IT skills are irrelevent in nations where basic food, water and medical supplies are not available. Forcing nations to spend on IT may be hugely inappropriate.

1- include: "adapted to the national technology level"

and the proposition also :

"-4- RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts"

well, the fact is that there aren't non-profit organistations making low-power machines.

There are:

"Simputer"

http://www.simputer.org/

"$100 laptop"

http://laptop.media.mit.edu/laptop-images.html


As well, IT education is insufficient, I myself have 3 IT certifications and none of them taught me anything I had yet to learn. If you want to get into to teaching children technology what you need to do is teach them about basic functions of all operating systems and teach them about the world of open source

Maybe we should have said in the proposition that nation are allowed to give as much IT education as they want to thier children, but we were thinking it was implied in the text, and anyway our proposition doesn't prevent nation togive as much IT education as they want to thier children

Love and esterel, you never responded to my reply in the GFDA vote. Did you read it? If so, then I'd like a reply as to why're continuing this anti-NSO line.

a non-profit organisation such as that can't sustain a global public school distribution, they don't have the resources and even at 100 dollars a laptop it's still coming from the hands of the tax payers of any country for an education that about 1 percent of the people recieving it will use. IT training is not a neccesity in government and as such having the tax payers pay for all children to recieve it would be horrendously injust. I would go so far as to say this proposal infringes upon the people's inalienable right of property. The government has no moral right to take from the people what they've earned and turn it into something only partiall useful, even if it was entirely useful, not every singular individual under a nation is going to want to pay for that. They might be getting this program in return for their taxes but it was not their with their willing consent that we spent their money on it. It would be like if you walked into a store, they handed you a computer and took the fair price for it from your wallet without any conversation or consent from you.

Another bullshit "recommends and urges and suggests and something else inane" resolution that doesn't do anything except affect your stats. :rolleyes:

Such a fucking waste of plenum time.

Love and esterel, you never responded to my reply in the GFDA vote. Did you read it? If so, then I'd like a reply as to why're continuing this anti-NSO line.

Gruenberg, ok i will answer you:

from #130 Global Food Distribution Act:

3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

4. ESTABLISHES the following schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms:

Years 1 thru 6: 36% cut over six years (6% per year)
Years 7 thru 11: 50% cut over five years (10% per year)
Year 12: 14% cut (total elimination of protectionist mechanisms)

I voted FOR this resolution and had supported it in the forum
This proposition requires the total elimination of tarrifs on food, so this proposition violate the national sovereignty of 30 000 nations.

You and many NSO members supported it on the forum, depiste the fact that it was obvioulsy the opposite of the NSO principles and attitude for most previous legislation

Then i suppose that NSO and NSO members are not anymore advocating Natsov

PS: from NSO public forum:

http://test256.free.fr/nso.jpg

I'll take that as a "no, I didn't read your post". Ok. Then fuck your resolution.

The IT Education Act currently set before the UN infringes upon the people's inalienable right of property. We're taking earnings from the hands of the people and putting it into an unneccesary program. Not only is the program not entirely useful but even if it was we do not have the direct and willing consent of every individual we're taxing to place their money into this program. This would be no different then walking into a technology store, having them hand you a computer and taking the fair price from your wallet without any consent or conversation from you. There is no income tax in the great Democratic Republic of Republisheepia and I wont let it start now. The inalienable rights of the people are at stake with this proposal and I urge every UN member to vote against it. Under John Locke's Social contract we are morally entitled to the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and Property, in this contract he emphasises property more then life and liberty, as property is more sustainable then life and liberty.(IE, after I die I can leave my house to my children) The people already give up certain rights so that these inalienable rights might be protected and to infringe upon those rights as well would be unjust by all measures.

The 'inalienable right to property' is not universally held. Your argument can and has been used against almost every UN resolution. The success rate of such an argument has been... low.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Well, I personally do think it's unjust but not for the reasons stated.

To sum it up in one card:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/pastetech.jpg

I'll take that as a "no, I didn't read your post". Ok. Then fuck your resolution.

Gruenberg, i have nothing against NSO, the current proposition is even natsov friendly, i would like to thanks Powerhungry Chipmunks for his advice on this matter.

IC: I would like to point out to the honourable representative from Love and esterel that Yelda's submission of the GFDA, and Powerhungry Chipmunks's of UNSBE, are not NSO-sponsored, endorsed, or approved. They are NSO members acting as legislators, not legislators acting as NSO members. At no point has the NSO claimed a monopoly on its members thoughts, freedoms, or actions.

It so happens that there has been dissent amongst the NSO regarding the resolution at vote: you may have noticed an NSO member vociferously arguing against it in this forum topic, and on the NSO forum.

Most NSO members supported the FOOD act and your poll is explicit
8/1/1 FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN

IC: I would say I am a fairly 'strong' sovereigntist. Yet I support this. Why? Because by entering the UN, we are entering into a special international agreement. We are acknowledging that we are going to pass FT/SJ resolutions, and given that UN resolutions cannot affect non-members, we are thus confining ourselves to a special trade area. In that spirit, then, to do anything other than protect the rights of my citizens to a) be able to purchase good, affordable food and b) compete in a global marketplace in which their industry, and not their national origin, is the prime determinant of success, seems ludicrous.

OK, but then aknoledge that the UN is also to pass Human rights resolutions to protect the rights of UN members citizens, and don't use anymore the natsov argument against Human right propositions


But that is my personal view. I am not speaking for other NSO members. We are, as I understand, a discussion forum. We are not a secret cult of the undead, all lurching across the floor of the GA murmuring "braaaains, braaaains, must feed on the braaaaains of international federalists". We're looking out for our citizens, as is our appointed, elected or otherwise decided responsibility. That you are unable to see that, and must instead resort to childish taunts, is a great, great shame.

Most NSO members supported the FOOD act and your poll is explicit
8/1/1 FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN

We are wavering between a no vote and abstaining since the resolution is unnecessary but harmless.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I'm aware it's not universally held, that's irrelevant, the fact is it SHOULD be. Everyone as soon as they are born are morally entitled to the rights of life, liberty and property. To infringe upon those rights infringes upon the moral obligation that we as governmental bodies have to the general public of people under us. The fact is this is completely unjust, it's a socialist concept that tries to do something nice for the people with no regard to morality or individual liberties. In the name of morality and of justice I urge anyone with a sense of human decency to vote against this proposal.

The resolution is certainly not harmless, this resolution is completely unjust and serves as a travesty to any sense of human decency and to the inalienable right of property. Until you have the direct and willing consent of every individual in the general populace to take their money and put it into this unneccesary program, then to take their earnings from their hand would be an insult to any form of morality and justice ever established in this world.

You still, clearly, haven't read my post; if you have, at least have the balls to actually respond to it.

THE NSO DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON OUR THOUGHTS.

Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the fact that I voted for the GFDA based on the principle of sovereignty. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When I voted for repeal of PoDA, I was imposing on nation's sovereignty in protecting species. I did it in favour of a greater sovereignty. I voted in favour GFDA because it worked in my sovereign interests: the ability to export, and the ability to eat.

But, ultimately, if you disagree, fine. Disagree with me. Accuse me of hypocrisy, and ignore my points. DON'T auto-ignore those who haven't explained (and probably haven't felt the need to explain) their justification to you.

I'm aware it's not universally held, that's irrelevant, the fact is it SHOULD be. Everyone as soon as they are born are morally entitled to the rights of life, liberty and property. To infringe upon those rights infringes upon the moral obligation that we as governmental bodies have to the general public of people under us. The fact is this is completely unjust, it's a socialist concept that tries to do something nice for the people with no regard to morality or individual liberties. In the name of morality and of justice I urge anyone with a sense of human decency to vote against this proposal.
On the contrary, it is very much relevant.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I - and, as fortune would have it, most Ecopoeians - do not share your views, having as we do a a strong sense of society and community. We are not socialist; indeed, taxation is not intrinsically socialist.

I would be grateful if you were less inclined to label me as immoral for holding such views.

VY

But that is my personal view. I am not speaking for other NSO members. We are, as I understand, a discussion forum. We are not a secret cult of the undead, all lurching across the floor of the GA murmuring "braaaains, braaaains, must feed on the braaaaains of international federalists".

We aren't? *hides a bloody, severed hand behind his back* Oh right. We aren't.

Taxation by any measure other then providing the most essential expenses of the government such as a military is most definatley socialist. Not only is this proposal an insult to any form of morality and human decency, but the execution is entirely impossible anyway. These non-profit organisations are small, a global public school distribution would require millions of PCs, an order which non-profit companies don't have the resources to handle. If I were a larger nation I would take military action against a government so incredibley inhumane and corrupt that they would infringe upon the people's inalienable right of property.

The people's moral entitlement to property is not an opinion, everyone from birth has the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. A government can infringe upon these rights only if they are immoral and oppressive. This act is just as immoral as murdering your own people by the millions.

Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the fact that I voted for the GFDA based on the principle of sovereignty. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When I voted for repeal of PoDA, I was imposing on nation's sovereignty in protecting species. I did it in favour of a greater sovereignty. I voted in favour GFDA because it worked in my sovereign interests: the ability to export, and the ability to eat.


Ok, no pb, so you mean that natsov is a very "subjective" notion and that everyone can use it about any resolution

You mean that some resolution who requires something can be natsov friendly and that some other resolution who only urges can violate sovereignty

You mean it's up to any nation to decide from its own interest if a resolution is natsov friendly or not.

And then, i think the adoption&ivf right proposition, even mandating same same sex couples adoption is natsov friendly, because it's in favour of the "greater sovereignty";)

Taxation by any measure other then providing the most essential expenses of the government such as a military is most definatley socialist.
I'm not going to split hairs with you.

]Not only is this proposal an insult to any form of morality and human decency...
Patent nonsense. Any form? Come, my friend, UN debate deserves better than this (no matter how frequently it is graced with far less).

If I were a larger nation I would take military action against a government so incredibley inhumane and corrupt that they would infringe upon the people's inalienable right of property.
Ironically, I'd describe that as an immoral act.

The people's moral entitlement to property is not an opinion, everyone from birth has the rights to Life, Liberty and Property.
I would contend that no one has any rights unless granted them by society.

A government can infringe upon these rights only if they are immoral and oppressive. This act is just as immoral as murdering your own people by the millions.
Offensive hyperbole will get you nowhere, my dear. Now, let's not be ratty with each other; I have some soothing herbal tea we can share in order that we may discuss this a little more rationally and objectively - does this sound reasonable to you?

VY

You still, clearly, haven't read my post; if you have, at least have the balls to actually respond to it.

THE NSO DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON OUR THOUGHTS.

My attack is on the natsov argument used by NSO members, i mean the natsov argument cannot be used anymore by NSO members who supported (the good) #130 Global Food Distribution Act,

and it seems most of those who voted:

http://test256.free.fr/nso.jpg

Ok, no pb, so you mean that natsov is a very "subjective" notion and that everyone can use it about any resolution

How could it possibly be an objective notion? It's an opinion, a viewpoint, like any other.

You mean that some resolution who requires something can be natsov friendly and that some other resolution who only urges can violate sovereignty

Don't understand, sorry.

You mean it's up to any nation to decide from its own interest if a resolution is natsov friendly or not.

No sher shitlock. TH doesn't descend from on high and strike us with his rod of awesomeness, commandething us to vote a certain way. We are capable of independent thought.

And then, i think the adoption&ivf right proposition, even mandating same same sex couples adoption is natsov friendly, because it's in favour of the "greater sovereignty";)

What greater sovereignty?

EDIT: Stop breaking the fucking page, please. Resize them if you must.

Considering the circumstnace this is extremely rational. If you would classify that as an immoral act then you would be incorrect, the only thing immoral about that statement is that I'm not doing everything within my power to overthrow any nation that would even consider supporting such a proposal.

People most definatley are entitled to rights before society grants it to them. The Liberty Limiting Harms Principle states that we are morally entitled to a right until it infringes upon the rights of others. Your nations have the right to national sovereignty until you infringe upon the inalienable rights of the people.

As well I'm not sure what you mean by offensive hyperbole. I'm stating nothing but the truth, would you expect me to be reserved about my opinions if you were either enslaving or murdering all of the people in your country? I'm sure you wouldn't, this circumstance is no different. A complete infringement to any standard of human decency. The United States Constitution says it best, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There's a difference between process of law and due process of law. You need to have a legitimate reason to infringe upon the right to property otherwise it's not due process and it's entirely immoral. (I'm aware you're not operating under the US constitution but the moral and philosophical principles within that constitution are exceptional and useful in a debate on morality)

*SNIP!*
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/Chechnya.jpg

Considering the circumstnace this is extremely rational. If you would classify that as an immoral act then you would be incorrect, the only thing immoral about that statement is that I'm doing everything within my power to overthrow any nation that would even consider supporting such a proposal.
The Black New World is trembling.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

What greater sovereignty?


I did it in favour of a greater sovereignty

you were mentionning it

for the scren copy, my screen is a flat 17" (it's cheap nowadays), is there a pb on other screen? sorry

I said "a", not "the". I then went onto explain what that "a" was: sovereign control over exports. You just left a vacuous statement that meant nothing.

And we think nowadays it's becoming more and more important for child to have some IT knowledge and that this knowledge is becoming more and more "basic" as reading, writing and counting are

Unless, of course, there's hardly any money for IT stuff, and food and water are more basic and higher on the priority list.

I fail to see the fluffie vision of everyone being the same

Yes, and I have pointed out to you that that is the major problem I have with you. I hope one day you'll see the light, and if you do, please don't switch it off.

I'm going to vote against this, for reasons outlined above by others. This really isn't something the UN should worry about now.

This UN policy is as vague as it is awful - I thereby classify it as "Vawful", for reasons not limited to those listed below.

1) I have no clue what this resolution is making my country do. Am I going to have to find a way to allot state funds to purchase a laptop for every kid 12 and under? Or just have a 'computer lab' that covers an entire school? What's the ratio, and what's the requirement? Too vague.

2) "-4- RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts "

The above 'recommendation' is somehow even more vague. Any policy that costs more than a penny (or whatever currency your nation may use) detracts from other spending in a zero sum manner of thinking. Does this mean that I never have to buy any computers because that funding was conveniently allotted to buying medicine for the elderly? Vague.

Besides, the resolution specifies that member nations take action when cost is 'not significant'. So what is that, 3% of budget? 4? 50? No clue, unacceptable.

3) -5.3- Proposing some non-profit organization or some companies to graciously offer some computers, internet access and technical support, as a sponsoring operation for them which can prove more efficient than a TV ad campaign

What in gods name does that mean (and my government is avowedly athiest, mind you). "Some non-profit organization or SOME COMPANIES"??? How does a line like that even get into a resolution? Awful, vague, and this section alone secured my opposition. If it weren't so vague, yet again, then I'd be horrified to note the possibility of a resolution not only disintegrating national soverignty, but also hijacking the autonomy of our home-grown corporations. Completely unacceptable.

4) -6.2- Giving access to these nations to a low rate loan/bonds system, which will be repaid in middle term by the growth of the amount of taxes collected due to the growth of information technology economic sector

What? What bonds, what loans, and what rate? I don't even know where this money is coming from, and how you get it. Is this out of UN funds? Our own funds? Is this mandated that I tax my IT sector? What's going on? NO ONE KNOWS. If I'm getting one of these loans, who do I pay it back to? I have no clue. And what's the Middle Term? How did that term worm its way in there? If these computers are as low-cost and non-significant in terms of cost, how would a tax cover it? How big is the tax? What are we taxing? Who are we taxing? Are we taxing the poor countries that we donated the computers to? What's going on?

I don't want to ramble on here, so I'll cut if off here for now. I have no idea as to what this will force my country to do, which throws into question as to why it should be supported at all. Clarification is neccessary, but there is none in the resolution.

I´m against this poposal. First of all I think that is at least ingenuous to try to change the reality of poor countrys population with this kind of resolutions.

Why? Because it´s obvious that the problem of accessibility (or in-accessibility) to technology, it is caused mainly beacause of poverty. Poor families are unable to buy food, books etc. (including the new Athlon 64 and the last relase of Electronic Arts)

So, what are we going to sugest poor countrys to do?

1) Rise their taxes?
2) Not pay the IMF?
2) Or cut their teachers wage?

I think that the UN, should certanly encurage their members to include this topic in their agendas.

But we can´t obligate them to spend money they don´t have, in topics that may be are not a priority for them.

Every nonviable resolution brings more descredit to the UN.

Thanks, and excuse my english

Oruro
We Speak Spanish

Considering the circumstnace this is extremely rational. If you would classify that as an immoral act then you would be incorrect, the only thing immoral about that statement is that I'm not doing everything within my power to overthrow any nation that would even consider supporting such a proposal.
Then you must acknowledge that it is perfectly acceptable for a radical Marxist to argue for prosecuting international wars of liberation on the basis of their ideology. This way madness lies. Are you sure you won't have some tea?

People most definatley are entitled to rights before society grants it to them. The Liberty Limiting Harms Principle states that we are morally entitled to a right until it infringes upon the rights of others. Your nations have the right to national sovereignty until you infringe upon the inalienable rights of the people.
What if we don't acknowledge the primacy of this principle? Rights are a human construct; without society to grant them, they do not exist.

As well I'm not sure what you mean by offensive hyperbole. I'm stating nothing but the truth, would you expect me to be reserved about my opinions if you were either enslaving or murdering all of the people in your country? I'm sure you wouldn't, this circumstance is no different. A complete infringement to any standard of human decency.
You're starting to sound like a preacher, not a rational debater. The scenarios are not equivalent; people being murdered and/or enslaved are suffering a great deal more than people who are subjected to taxation. Are you really saying that losing some of your money to pay for, say, healthcare, is comparable to being gang-raped? Really, some perspective is needed here.

Camomile suit you?

VY

The United States Constitution says it best, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There's a difference between process of law and due process of law. You need to have a legitimate reason to infringe upon the right to property otherwise it's not due process and it's entirely immoral. (I'm aware you're not operating under the US constitution but the moral and philosophical principles within that constitution are exceptional and useful in a debate on morality)
OOC: I prefer not to debate out of character and note that Ecopoeia's views are not the same as my own. Anyway, using this constitution hinges on what constitutes a "legitimate reason". I suspect we'll disagree on what is legitimate.

--snip--

Hell of a first post. I agree with you entirely, and will be stealing many of your ideas to argue against this stupid thing.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/872/crad45hk.png

I must agree with Republisheepia. This current UN Resolution under vote is a complete and utter violation of the Government of a nations authority over their nation, and a gross violation of the rights of a nations citizens. This is no matter how it is written, or how it is interpreted, a attempt to force under penalty a individual Government to violate the rights of it's citizens. To enact this Resolution would be paramount to a coup to overthrow a government and place the Un's own selection of leaders in the place of that nation's leaders. It would also be tha same as entering a house, and taking a parents child(children) away from them due to you not agreeing with the way they are raising or teaching their child(children). As such it is a violation of the law, and as such would be classified as a crime, which is called Kidnapping.

However, there is another reason why this UN Resolution is wrong. Not every nation believes that the best way to teach children is to have computers, and computers with internet capabilities in a school. I happen to be the President of one of those nations. To force me to change the way I teeach the children in my nation is the same as removing me from office. Which would be paramount to declaring war.

I happen to believe that the best way to teach children is not with computers, but with text books, homework, teachers, and parents, and good old fashioned school philosophy. The children in my nation are taught throught those means, and reading of books from libraries, and text books. The teachers are there for any questions and to teach them. There are tutors free of cost to students, parents are encouraged and invited to visit the classrooms at any time, as long as there is no interferance with the teacher. Children are taught, responsibilty, respect for all persons and the law, and other things. That is why my crime rate is so low.

If the children of my nation want to use the computer, they are more than welcome to. Their are computers available to them at their homes, if their parents own on or let them own one, and at 18 and under computer cafe's, Public libraries do not have computers that are internet capable, because libraries are for reading and research of items in books. Nothing else.

It may not be Immoral if this resolution passes and the UN tries and forces governments to do what is in the resolution, but it is Illegal, and paramount to declaring war. As such I have voted against this resolution, and will not abide by it if it passes.

The UN is and should not be a Dictatorship. The UN is and should be a council of Nations, meeting in council regularly to discuss circumstances and issues that effect the world. Passing or vetoing Resolutions is part of the UN yes, However the UN should not nor can it force a nation to abide by a Resolution. If a nation does not abide by a Resolution, then so what. There should be no consequences, inthe form of embargo's, military action, blockade's etc. Diplomatic action is the only action that can be undertaken by the UN. If the UN has decided that there will be a metemorphasis froma diplomatic entity, into a Dictatorship then I must inform the UN council that my nation can no longer participate or be a member of such a entity.

Then you must acknowledge that it is perfectly acceptable for a radical Marxist to argue for prosecuting international wars of liberation on the basis of their ideology. This way madness lies. Are you sure you won't have some tea?


What if we don't acknowledge the primacy of this principle? Rights are a human construct; without society to grant them, they do not exist.


You're starting to sound like a preacher, not a rational debater. The scenarios are not equivalent; people being murdered and/or enslaved are suffering a great deal more than people who are subjected to taxation. Are you really saying that losing some of your money to pay for, say, healthcare, is comparable to being gang-raped? Really, some perspective is needed here.

Camomile suit you?

VY


OOC: I prefer not to debate out of character and note that Ecopoeia's views are not the same as my own. Anyway, using this constitution hinges on what constitutes a "legitimate reason". I suspect we'll disagree on what is legitimate.

I don't have to acknowledge anything by someone who follows the philosophy of Karl Marx. You can say that if they were right then it would be acceptable for them to do that but the fact is there is a HUGE difference between being morally right and morally wrong.

As well, society does happen to exist and does recognise the primacy of these rights, so I'm not sure where you're going with that arguement. There are governments that don't uphold these rights, but that simply means they are improperly run.

If you believe I'm sounding like a preacher then you are mistaken, having an opinion does not make me a fanatic. I happen to like morality, if you don't, then you're welcome to be oppresive to your people. As you might have noticed from reading my posts, I'm not randomly talking about the immorality of the issue, I'm stating exactly why it is immoral. I would consider slavery no different then unneccesary taxation, yes. In a world where every human was perfect then government funded programs would be acceptable, but in that instance, any form of government whatsoever would work, even anarchy. We do not live in a perfect world, and as such we do not have the willing and direct consent of the people to take their property for this purpose. There is nothing moral about this proposal. Although I will take you up on the tea, I like chai.

There's also the fact that this proposal would be impossible to execute, small non-profit companies can't take orders of millions of PCs. They just don't have the capacity and neccesary resources to produce such an order.

Actually, I am sorry to say. You are mistaken concerning the rights issue.
Society does not need or have to exist for a person to have rights. To either say that or assume that is a major misinterpatation of humanity.
In fact, a person is granted rights upon birth. Due to the fact that the only requirement for a person to have rights is life. Once a person is born, that person is granted inalieable rights, that continue as long as that person lives.

For you to say that a person does not have rights unless society exists, is paramount to you saying that society is the basis of all things. Society is not the basis of all things, and to think such is an affront to life itself. There is one reason society exists for. That reason is to provide structure to life.

This UN policy is as vague as it is awful - I thereby classify it as "Vawful", for reasons not limited to those listed below.

thanks for your post
i agree "It ed" is vague, this is because the panel of technologies and tech-level between UN members is quite large

1) I have no clue what this resolution is making my country do. Am I going to have to find a way to allot state funds to purchase a laptop for every kid 12 and under? Or just have a 'computer lab' that covers an entire school? What's the ratio, and what's the requirement? Too vague.

Nothing is required in this proposition, the main important clause is -1-, we don't want states to funds a laptot for each child, but there are non-profit organisation who have project to provide cheap-basic and low consuption computer to children for education, this propsoition spport theses actions

It would have been also impossible and irealistic to asks each classroom to have X computers

This proposition is more like a message, maybe you will think that's it could have been worded in a better way, i will agree with you, but we did the best we can

2) "-4- RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts "

The above 'recommendation' is somehow even more vague. Any policy that costs more than a penny (or whatever currency your nation may use) detracts from other spending in a zero sum manner of thinking. Does this mean that I never have to buy any computers because that funding was conveniently allotted to buying medicine for the elderly? Vague.

Besides, the resolution specifies that member nations take action when cost is 'not significant'. So what is that, 3% of budget? 4? 50? No clue, unacceptable.

We were thinking it will not be good for the UN to be precise on these topics, because there are too many situations.

This proposition is natsov friendly and is reflecting a spirit without imposing anything; If you don't like this kind of proposition, then no pb vote AGAINST.



3) -5.3- Proposing some non-profit organization or some companies to graciously offer some computers, internet access and technical support, as a sponsoring operation for them which can prove more efficient than a TV ad campaign

What in gods name does that mean (and my government is avowedly athiest, mind you). "Some non-profit organization or SOME COMPANIES"??? How does a line like that even get into a resolution? Awful, vague, and this section alone secured my opposition. If it weren't so vague, yet again, then I'd be horrified to note the possibility of a resolution not only disintegrating national soverignty, but also hijacking the autonomy of our home-grown corporations. Completely unacceptable.

We think it will be better for example if IT companies were sponsoring IT school equiments, instead of paying for TV ad campaign. Once again, no pb if you disagree

And some organisations have develped or/and develop cheap and low consumming solution for children. We think IT education is important for children, for their future employments skills, for communicating, for knowledge and culture, so ths proposition support these organisations.

Some examples:

"Simputer"

http://www.simputer.org/

"$100 laptop"

http://laptop.media.mit.edu/laptop-images.html



I have no idea as to what this will force my country to do, which throws into question as to why it should be supported at all.


the answer is "nothing"
if you don't like resolutions doing nothing, vote against

We think sometimes resolutions should do something, and sometimes they must draw a 'spirit" and influence national action and legislations. it's our opinion. LAE co-authored "IT education act" in the same way we authored "The sex education act": a mild proposition doing nothing apart from reflecting a spirit.

i hope to have answered all your questions and you have understand our aim with this resolution, whatever you decide to vote

it looks like the UN wants to use the big stick again.

as a firm believer in a nations right to develop and grow in their own way, the recent proposals i'm seeing coming through the UN debating chamber really worry me.

first off diplomatic immunity, then the FFRA, the global food act and now this.

firstly each UN member has a different level of technology. some schools and homes in member nations may not even have electricity. for them a blackboard, text books and chalk approach works really well. if they want to educate their children that way that is their business.

although the Empire of Kirisubo has the technology in place we strongly disagree with this proposal. yet another anti-national sovereignty proposal has hit the debating floor and i wonder whose going to benefit from this.

not the children out in a rural communty school. not the savage tribes living out in rainforests in harmony with nature and not even the children in Kirisuban schools.

the only people that will benefit from this is the fat cat corporations who will be suppliying these computers and software that nations will be forced to buy just because the UN tells them to do this if this passes.

a nation that can sucessfully educate its children dosen't need the supposed 'help' this proposal will bring.

the Empire of Kirisubo votes against

Kaigan Miromuta
Kirisuban Ambassador to the UN

If you want proposals that do nothing DON'T PROPOSE THEM. Stop wasting our time.

Nothing is required in this proposition,

We were thinking it will not be good for the UN to be precise on these topics, because there are too many situations.

This proposition is natsov friendly and is reflecting a spirit without imposing anything; If you don't like this kind of proposition, then no pb vote AGAINST.

if you don't like resolutions doing nothing, vote against

Fair enough, but doesn't this just feed the rampant cynicism towards the UN?


Steve Perry
President

No sher shitlock. TH doesn't descend from on high and strike us with his rod of awesomeness, commandething us to vote a certain way. We are capable of independent thought.

This is correct. My Rod of Awesomeness is reserved for private use on very special occasions.

This is correct. My Rod of Awesomeness is reserved for private use on very special occasions.
About that…

We have casted our vote against. Laudable as the spirit of the resolution is, however:

We believe that this is an issue for individual governments to make a decision on; we believe that it may distract from priorities such as provision of basic sanitation, water and food; we are unclear as to how the bonds issue will work out.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

http://img173.imageshack.us/img173/6938/crad40fw.png

it looks like the UN wants to use the big stick again.

as a firm believer in a nations right to develop and grow in their own way, the recent proposals i'm seeing coming through the UN debating chamber really worry me.

first off diplomatic immunity, then the FFRA, the global food act and now this.

firstly each UN member has a different level of technology. some schools and homes in member nations may not even have electricity. for them a blackboard, text books and chalk approach works really well. if they want to educate their children that way that is their business.

although the Empire of Kirisubo has the technology in place we strongly disagree with this proposal. yet another anti-national sovereignty proposal has hit the debating floor and i wonder whose going to benefit from this.

not the children out in a rural communty school. not the savage tribes living out in rainforests in harmony with nature and not even the children in Kirisuban schools.

the only people that will benefit from this is the fat cat corporations who will be suppliying these computers and software that nations will be forced to buy just because the UN tells them to do this if this passes.

a nation that can sucessfully educate its children dosen't need the supposed 'help' this proposal will bring.

You may not like the proposition at vote, but you cannot say about it " the UN wants to use the big stick again" in the same manner as FFRA or the global food; the proposal at vote mandates, requires, ban and declares nothing

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Caradune

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED by the number of children who do not have basic information technology education,

-B- CONVINCED that the mastering of Information Technology is essential in the education of every child worldwide and for his/her own future

-C- FULLY AWARE of the difference of technology level between member nations

-D- SEEKING to minimize the cost of the following clauses

-E- FULLY AWARE of the availability of cheap, basic and low power-consumption computers designed by non-profit organizations


-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to secure that each child, aged at least 12, receive some information technology education adapted to the national technology level. This can be integrated into National Education programs,

-2- ENCOURAGES STRONGLY all nations to secure for every child, aged at least 12, some access in school to information technology school equipment with educational software and Internet access,

-3- SUPPORTS operations which provide children, personal computers with Internet access and educational software, or more powerful high-tech educational tool, when the cost for the Nations will not be significant. Computers, Internet access or others tools could be bought or rented at a very modest price for children not able to afford them

-4- RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts

-5- ENCOURAGES all Nations to try to limit the cost induced by this resolution, by different means such as:

-5.1- providing cheap, basic and low power-consumption computers designed by non-profit organization as those that already exist

-5.2- Running the computers mentioned in this resolution with needed open-source software, freeware or software graciously paid or discounted by companies, as a sponsoring operation for them or by non-profit organization

-5.3- Proposing some non-profit organization or some companies to graciously offer some computers, internet access and technical support, as a sponsoring operation for them which can prove more efficient than a TV ad campaign

-6- ENCOURAGES all developed Nations to help developing Nations to implement this program, by different means such as:

-6.1- Sharing technologies with nations who don't have yet access to them

-6.2- Giving access to these nations to a low rate loan/bonds system, which will be repaid in middle term by the growth of the amount of taxes collected due to the growth of information technology economic sector

Co-authored by Love and esterel

I am of the opinion that it is of high importance that there be an effort, through the U.N., to boost international standards of computer and IT literacy and competence. Today's economies are increasingly relying on high-tech innovation and industrial development in the IT and technological sectors to remain competitive in the global market place. This will cost many nations a substantial amount of money in the short run, yet ultimately, I believe that the return investment they will get through the better basic standard of IT and greater exposure to technological diversity and growth.

It is true that this shouldn't be done at the expense of other pressing concerns to nations, particularly in developing ones who may already have great and urgent requirements for funding in other areas (i.e. healthcare). Yet I don't think this would occur and the technology introduced to fulfill the requirements of this resolution could be used for other purposes (i.e. adult IT education, development of national information network, internet access, etc). It strikes me as unfair that many view this as bureaucratic. I see it as a potentially liberating force, by enabling many nations previously dependent on outside technical aid, the possibility of beginning the process of building up a IT literate generation, who may be able to provide this role in future years.

I do however, have some questions:

1: If countries are at such a basic level of development that this is not applicable, how shall they be rendered able to undertake the enterprises outlined in the resolution.

5.2: What if the companies attempt to gain excessive leverage in return for their sponsorship? How would countries resist such pressure?

6.2: What measures can be taken by nations with widely circumvented tax systems, to ensure adaquate funding?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador of the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Fair enough, but doesn't this just feed the rampant cynicism towards the UN?



Some nations are sovereignists and don't want the UN to impose anything, others are federalists and tend to think resolutions must do something.

Both position are respectable, LAE has no position in this debate, and it's why we can support/propose both mild (natsov-friendly) and significant/strong (violating natsov) resolutions

I don't think that either mild or strong resolution feed rampant cynism, but it's my own opinion, personnaly i like we have some mild and some other strong, depending on the topic.

This is NOT a NatSov-friendly proposal, however mild it is.

I am abstaining on this issue. it's nice, but feel that infringes on national soverignty too much.

Plus given a chance, Love and esterel would turn the whole UN into their fluffie vision of everyone being the same. Moreover, IT skills are irrelevent in nations where basic food, water and medical supplies are not available. Forcing nations to spend on IT may be hugely inappropriate.

It is a recommendation and does not the discrepency in technological availability. Nations that have much more pressing issues do not need to worry about this. However, those that have the resources should invest in getting these goals met - and these goals do not require that much in terms of investment. If you would like, I could certainly explain the program I was working on during the summer which was doing exactly this for a minimal cost to the government and schools.

However, nations should be doing is balancing the proposal with the effects it has on their nation, and also the effects it has on other nations. In this case I said it’s bad for the reasons I listed. I’m rich, so Hirota can afford it. Poorer nations are poor, and can’t afford it.

Most nations that have the infrastructure to support this sort of IT investment will be able to afford it.

-------------------
I voted against this issue, in the nation of republisheepia all schools are privately owned and as such are in control of their own cirriculum save for some core requirements that they need to meet. As well, IT education is insufficient, I myself have 3 IT certifications and none of them taught me anything I had yet to learn. If you want to get into to teaching children technology what you need to do is teach them about basic functions of all operating systems and teach them about the world of open source. As well, the fact is that there aren't non-profit organistations making low-power machines. There are many corporations making economical machines but they're certainly not non-profit and certainly can't offer the prices affordable by the smaller countries.

Open source is not the end-all be-all of the world. It is an error to think that. NOR can you claim that what little you learnt means that no one else will benefit from it. The mere fact that you are promoting open source as the end-all be-all shows that you are quite competent in computers. Having worked with people of various ages using computers, I KNOW that the average user is rather incompetent. Worse, they are unwilling to invest significant time into learning what, in many societies, is becoming the prerequesite for a MASSIVE percentage of jobs.

The problem with open-source is that it often forgets those who are relative "newbies" in the environment, and worries more about those who want to have more capabilities. Unfortunately, the two are almost universally mutually exclusive. I cannot blame the open-source community for this - as they have their audience and it is a good audience for them to pander to. However, I cannot accept their claims that this is the best idea. In programming, there is no such thing as "end-all be-all", and any good programmer knows this. So why would they claim that this is the case for what they develope? It is better FOR CERTAIN THINGS.

That said, your point about low power issues is correct. You can generally find 3-5 year old computers for free, but it is difficult to get stuff that's newer than that, and you certainly won't see it come off the production line. Software is a different story.

------------------------------
Thanks for telling me how to wipe my arse. I hadn't realized you were going to be using that one, as it's a week old, and focussed on the deleted one, which might have confused some. Nonetheless, my apologies: should the mods find this thread, they should lock/merge/kill-stab-burn as appropriate.

Thanks for using a lack of civility on these forums. I hadn't realized you were going to be using the most critical of tones, one that got old years ago, and focused on tormenting the authors without justification or logical reasoning. Nonetheless, my apologies: I suppose I shouldn't have expected as much from you.

Seriously, that was out of line.

--------------------
"$100 laptop"

Relatively expensive compared to some operations I've seen - but these aren't looking at low-power machines. I suppose there is some concern that you are promoting a single product over several ways to supply machines at low cost.

---------------------
a non-profit organisation such as that can't sustain a global public school distribution, they don't have the resources and even at 100 dollars a laptop it's still coming from the hands of the tax payers of any country for an education that about 1 percent of the people recieving it will use.

Debatable about whether they can continue that supply, but the cost question is noted.

IT training is not a neccesity in government and as such having the tax payers pay for all children to recieve it would be horrendously injust. I would go so far as to say this proposal infringes upon the people's inalienable right of property. The government has no moral right to take from the people what they've earned and turn it into something only partiall useful, even if it was entirely useful, not every singular individual under a nation is going to want to pay for that.

Sir, there is no conceivable way I could possibly convince you of the necessity of taxes or the fact that people's continual concern about how much they are taxed is nothing short of ludicrous short-sightedness and a blatant failure of understanding the POINT. However, I know that there is no conceivable way to prove otherwise.

They might be getting this program in return for their taxes but it was not their with their willing consent that we spent their money on it. It would be like if you walked into a store, they handed you a computer and took the fair price for it from your wallet without any conversation or consent from you.

Whatever

-------------------------------------
Then i suppose that NSO and NSO members are not anymore advocating Natsov

Not all NSO members protect NatSov when they vote upon every resolution.

--------------------------------------
I'll take that as a "no, I didn't read your post". Ok. Then fuck your resolution.

Grow up.

-------------------------------------
This UN policy is as vague as it is awful - I thereby classify it as "Vawful", for reasons not limited to those listed below.

I shall have to remember that classification.

1) I have no clue what this resolution is making my country do. Am I going to have to find a way to allot state funds to purchase a laptop for every kid 12 and under? Or just have a 'computer lab' that covers an entire school? What's the ratio, and what's the requirement? Too vague.

It is recommending that you provide access for students. You don't need to supply a single computer. The reason for this is likely due to issues like 3rd world nations not having the ability to support any major investment into IT. As such, its a recommendation for you. If you would like a suggestion of a possible implementation that would, within 10-15 years, have at least one computer lab in every school, message me and I shall be certain to explain one real-world one that has been quite successful for minimal cost.

2) "-4- RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts "

The above 'recommendation' is somehow even more vague. Any policy that costs more than a penny (or whatever currency your nation may use) detracts from other spending in a zero sum manner of thinking. Does this mean that I never have to buy any computers because that funding was conveniently allotted to buying medicine for the elderly? Vague.

Again, a 3rd world consideration. If your concern is that your people are starving, obviously you need to invest into that first. The clause is basically saying "we are not trying to claim this is a higher priority than the health and wellness of your people".

Besides, the resolution specifies that member nations take action when cost is 'not significant'. So what is that, 3% of budget? 4? 50? No clue, unacceptable.

Your nation decides this. Recommendation resolutions have the luxury of being more vague.

3) -5.3- Proposing some non-profit organization or some companies to graciously offer some computers, internet access and technical support, as a sponsoring operation for them which can prove more efficient than a TV ad campaign

What in gods name does that mean (and my government is avowedly athiest, mind you). "Some non-profit organization or SOME COMPANIES"??? How does a line like that even get into a resolution? Awful, vague, and this section alone secured my opposition. If it weren't so vague, yet again, then I'd be horrified to note the possibility of a resolution not only disintegrating national soverignty, but also hijacking the autonomy of our home-grown corporations. Completely unacceptable.

If you would like an explanation - I will be more than happy via TG. The donations actually come from companies that no longer need the computers (most major companies have fairly regular cycles upon which they replace their entire fleet of computers - and those that are being removed can be sent off to schools for use there.) If you would like more details, it is part of the real-world system I mentioned above.

4) -6.2- Giving access to these nations to a low rate loan/bonds system, which will be repaid in middle term by the growth of the amount of taxes collected due to the growth of information technology economic sector

What? What bonds, what loans, and what rate? I don't even know where this money is coming from, and how you get it. Is this out of UN funds? Our own funds? Is this mandated that I tax my IT sector? What's going on? NO ONE KNOWS. If I'm getting one of these loans, who do I pay it back to? I have no clue. And what's the Middle Term? How did that term worm its way in there? If these computers are as low-cost and non-significant in terms of cost, how would a tax cover it? How big is the tax? What are we taxing? Who are we taxing? Are we taxing the poor countries that we donated the computers to? What's going on?

I'll let the authors go into detail on this one.

I don't want to ramble on here, so I'll cut if off here for now. I have no idea as to what this will force my country to do, which throws into question as to why it should be supported at all. Clarification is neccessary, but there is none in the resolution.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You are forced to do NOTHING.

---------------------------
TH - this is why I don't think your argument that "we'll get more support for these systems if we don't force these systems upon them" is wrong.

--------------------------

I would like to point out to all those who state that this proposal will come at the cost of nations being able to afford basic needs such as food and water, that the proposal has a clause built in that stops that from ever being the case. Further, the proposal merely urges and so forth, it does not require anything, so a nation would be free to not take up the actions herein, or to stop them at any point.

The Federation of Gravemalkin is unsure as to how we will cast our vote, despite that we approved the proposal to go to vote. Many good points have been raised, and fairly little has been said against these points save something along the lines of "nyah nyah you're wrong, just because!" We view the ideals in this proposal as admirable, if lacking in strength through enforcement. Though considering what happened last time an IT proposal came through that had any teeth it is understandable why this one is so tame.

TH - this is why I don't think your argument that "we'll get more support for these systems if we don't force these systems upon them" is wrong.

1. More support? If I said that, it was poorly stated. What happens is not that people will support it if it's not forced on them, it's just that they no longer have an overwhelming objection to it.

2. *shrug* People might feel better that it's a recommendation rather then a declaration, but sometimes even then there are other objections. Some might think that it will have unwanted social consequences simply by promoting the value (that was a big complaint against Right to Self-Protection). Others might feel that it's an issue the UN should not be addressing even as a promotional piece. People's reasoning involves many factors that can influence the outcome of their vote, not just the one promotion v. declaration issue.

This is NOT a NatSov-friendly proposal, however mild it is.

Ok - maybe you mentioned this in the PODA hijack, but why is it not NatSov friendly? Stop with the one lined answers and start actually GIVING an answer.

1. More support? If I said that, it was poorly stated. What happens is not that people will support it if it's not forced on them, it's just that they no longer have an overwhelming objection to it.

It was something along those lines in your "Why I'm a sovereigntist" thread. I almost certainly misquoted it.

It is a recommendation and does not the discrepency in technological availability. Nations that have much more pressing issues do not need to worry about this. However, those that have the resources should invest in getting these goals met - and these goals do not require that much in terms of investment. If you would like, I could certainly explain the program I was working on during the summer which was doing exactly this for a minimal cost to the government and schools.

Such programs have to be individually tailored to a nation's, and probably a region's, needs. Given the variance in technological development, economic power, and government priorities within the NSUN, I find it hard to believe 2, let alone 30,000, nations would approach it in the same way. This is why, however mild it is, I do not support this proposal. The fact that it admits that one-size-fits-all resolutions are worthless does not excuse it from that same inspection. Such policies, in certain countries, are admirable; in others, as you and the proposal admit, they're irrelevant. Which is exactly why this is an individual, not an international, decision.

Most nations that have the infrastructure to support this sort of IT investment will be able to afford it.

Many will also have thought of it. This proposal makes no account, that I can see, of nations where this sort of policy is already being done. So, again, you might say, doesn't matter: they can ignore it. True. But if their schemes are being operated in a different way, or in a way that goes against some of the ideas contained within this proposal, then they will have the force of UN law disapproving of something which they have done out of their own initiative, whilst others are free to never start the program.

It is recommending that you provide access for students. You don't need to supply a single computer. The reason for this is likely due to issues like 3rd world nations not having the ability to support any major investment into IT. As such, its a recommendation for you. If you would like a suggestion of a possible implementation that would, within 10-15 years, have at least one computer lab in every school, message me and I shall be certain to explain one real-world one that has been quite successful for minimal cost.

So what you're saying is...a RL nation, not subject to NSUN resolutions, managed to increase access? That's crazy. How could they do this? Surely they need the force of a mild resolution to get the fire up them. Or, perhaps, if they don't, we're left contemplating that even nations who don't recognise the IT Education Act make progress in IT education. So not only are the "no's" ignoring it, but the "yes's" too. So is there any point to it?

Again, a 3rd world consideration. If your concern is that your people are starving, obviously you need to invest into that first. The clause is basically saying "we are not trying to claim this is a higher priority than the health and wellness of your people".

The clause is an admittance that the proposal is wildly unsuitable for international law. There are too many individual considerations for a sweeping IT policy. Fine, so he makes it mild and toothless. But then, there's no real point to having an international law, is there? Resolutions need to affect nations, or be administrative. This is neither: it just exists as a "wouldn't it be nice" idea.

Your nation decides this. Recommendation resolutions have the luxury of being more vague.

Or, in this case, completely vague. 100% vague. Given that our government decides us, why not allow our governments to decide it? Acknowledge that UN nations have differing attitudes to technology, and be done with it. Hell, call a conference for appropriate nations and create an international agreement for SUITABLE nations where it is applicable. I'd probably attend. But this is just pointless.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You are forced to do NOTHING.

Not quite true. We're forced to recognise that the international body we are members of has passed a pointless resolution that has non-members scratching heads at what we actually do.

----

Ok, you think I'm being snippy? Damn fucking right I'm being snippy. It is not enough for a resolution to be nice. For all that I may appear to be the raging picture of sheer masculinity, I do in fact like balls. Or rather, I like resolutions that have balls. Even if they do hateful things, that my country abhors...they at least should have the balls to do that. Because then we can have an argument. This is an automatic win for the authors. Like it? Vote for. Don't like it? Vote for, and don't implement it. There's nothing to discuss here, nothing to do. It is, once again, pointless.

If we as a UN are to simply sit around and talk about what we'd like to happen but we don't want to annoy anyone so we don't really want to do it actually, then fine. But that turns us into a global airbag. I'd rather we did something. We have the opportunity, unlike the RL UN, to actually do something, to make laws that are binding in all member nations. And, come on, I'm a sovereigntist; I don't like admitting this stuff. But it's true: we should make resolutions that do something. Yeah, I have no major gripes with this thing; I'll leave that to the IT experts. But I have a gripe with people who believe they can pass wafer-thin shit off as substantive legislation.

This doesn't do anything. So don't do it. Leave it to individual nations. You don't need a UN resolution to tell us that's what you're doing here.

The USSFP has chosen to accept this issue. Only, the USSFP will construct a list of allowable and banned sites and programs to be used by the students of the National Education Sector in order to protect from opposing ideals.

USSFP National Education Sector Protayr.

Ok, you think I'm being snippy? Damn fucking right I'm being snippy. It is not enough for a resolution to be nice. For all that I may appear to be the raging picture of sheer masculinity, I do in fact like balls. Or rather, I like resolutions that have balls. Even if they do hateful things, that my country abhors...they at least should have the balls to do that. Because then we can have an argument. This is an automatic win for the authors. Like it? Vote for. Don't like it? Vote for, and don't implement it. There's nothing to discuss here, nothing to do. It is, once again, pointless.

Gruenberg, no pb, if you don't like resolution mandating nothing or if you dont like the spirit of the "IT ed", vote against; sorry that this one doesn't have balls as adoption&ivf does;)

Gruenberg, if you want some proposition with balls, let me know i will draft some for you;)

Adoption & IVF is irrelevant; in any case, I don't believe I commented on that one.

I am voting against; continually saying "no pb" isn't going to stop me speaking against it. Your refusal to defend it smacks of arrogance.

Gruenberg, if you want some proposition with balls, let me know i will draft some for you;)

Alright. When this passes, support an instant repeal, and then redraft it to actually do something.

Alright. When this passes, support an instant repeal, and then redraft it to actually do something.

Gruenberg, please forgive me if i had been arrogant, sorry, it as a joke

Anyway, PC convinced me it's better to be soft when writing resolutions

I oppose. I tried to read the resolution, but fell asleep halfway through. When I woke up, I was gripey, and decided to vote against.

(And was the first person to do so!)

I had no idea what the thing was about :confused: so i went with the majority :D but regreted it 2 minuites later :headbang: ! (i am addicted 2 smilies! :p )

I am not speaking for Powerhungry Chipmunks.

PC's resolutions to which I assume you're alluding DO do something. They bind the power of the UN. The UN can still legislate on IT matters after ITEE passes; it cannot legislate in certain tax matters now. There is a distinct difference. This is why, in my reply to Forgottenlord, I made the point that resolutions should be substantive "or administrative". I would class "Representation in Taxation" and its predecessor as the latter. ITEE is neither.

I'm just going to copy/paste my post from the other thread. It still covers my feelings about this resolution...

The only significant thing about this proposal is it significantly does and means absolutly nothing. Yet again a proposal/resolution is going to kiss us on the hand and ask pretty please but other than that, will just be a waste of space.

I know other resolutions passed recently have done the same, PCs tax resolution for one. It was written simply to stop any future proposals affecting a nations tax rate. While I don't agree with that, many did, so it at least has a purpose. Dipolmatic immunity is important for international relations and co-operation, so again while it mandated nothing, it has an important purpose.

I can't see any purpose to this one except to ask nations nicely to allow kiddies to learn to use computers. Surely nations with the technology are already doing that, and those that don't can't. Can someone please tell me why this resolution is necessary because I can't see any reason for it.

I'll be voting against if it gets to vote and will be strongly pushing the 3 delegates I have some clout with/over to do the same.

I'll be voting against as soon as I finish reading the forum and go to the main site.

Such programs have to be individually tailored to a nation's, and probably a region's, needs. Given the variance in technological development, economic power, and government priorities within the NSUN, I find it hard to believe 2, let alone 30,000, nations would approach it in the same way. This is why, however mild it is, I do not support this proposal. The fact that it admits that one-size-fits-all resolutions are worthless does not excuse it from that same inspection. Such policies, in certain countries, are admirable; in others, as you and the proposal admit, they're irrelevant. Which is exactly why this is an individual, not an international, decision.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be nudged on to actually try and actively work to implement some system.

Many will also have thought of it. This proposal makes no account, that I can see, of nations where this sort of policy is already being done. So, again, you might say, doesn't matter: they can ignore it. True. But if their schemes are being operated in a different way, or in a way that goes against some of the ideas contained within this proposal, then they will have the force of UN law disapproving of something which they have done out of their own initiative, whilst others are free to never start the program.

That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen you make. Just about every resolution has that same flaw. If you already fully recognize same-sex marriages, you wouldn't be affected by resolution 12 when it went into place, thuse you could arguably claim it doesn't affect you. Now tell me, does your argument still hold for those resolutions?

So what you're saying is...a RL nation, not subject to NSUN resolutions, managed to increase access? That's crazy. How could they do this? Surely they need the force of a mild resolution to get the fire up them. Or, perhaps, if they don't, we're left contemplating that even nations who don't recognise the IT Education Act make progress in IT education. So not only are the "no's" ignoring it, but the "yes's" too. So is there any point to it?

Again, truth of every resolution ever passed.

And yes there's a point to it. Some nations aren't necessarily considering it - and there is a certain amount of pressure that comes from the international community to develope such a system if a recommendation resolution is passed. So the "no's" aren't entirely ignoring it, they just don't have to follow it to the letter.

The clause is an admittance that the proposal is wildly unsuitable for international law. There are too many individual considerations for a sweeping IT policy. Fine, so he makes it mild and toothless. But then, there's no real point to having an international law, is there? Resolutions need to affect nations, or be administrative. This is neither: it just exists as a "wouldn't it be nice" idea.

Because RL UN resolutions are either administrative or affect nations automatically. Please. He isn't making it international law, and it really is a "wouldn't it be nice" idea. Sheesh.

Or, in this case, completely vague. 100% vague. Given that our government decides us, why not allow our governments to decide it? Acknowledge that UN nations have differing attitudes to technology, and be done with it. Hell, call a conference for appropriate nations and create an international agreement for SUITABLE nations where it is applicable. I'd probably attend. But this is just pointless.

You were just complaining about it being too specific, and now you're complaining about it being too vague.

Not quite true. We're forced to recognise that the international body we are members of has passed a pointless resolution that has non-members scratching heads at what we actually do.

There's 130 other resolutions that we've passed that they can see we DID do - so you can stop worrying about that - the non-members are well aware of what we do.

Ok, you think I'm being snippy? Damn fucking right I'm being snippy. It is not enough for a resolution to be nice. For all that I may appear to be the raging picture of sheer masculinity, I do in fact like balls. Or rather, I like resolutions that have balls. Even if they do hateful things, that my country abhors...they at least should have the balls to do that. Because then we can have an argument. This is an automatic win for the authors. Like it? Vote for. Don't like it? Vote for, and don't implement it. There's nothing to discuss here, nothing to do. It is, once again, pointless.

If we as a UN are to simply sit around and talk about what we'd like to happen but we don't want to annoy anyone so we don't really want to do it actually, then fine. But that turns us into a global airbag. I'd rather we did something. We have the opportunity, unlike the RL UN, to actually do something, to make laws that are binding in all member nations. And, come on, I'm a sovereigntist; I don't like admitting this stuff. But it's true: we should make resolutions that do something. Yeah, I have no major gripes with this thing; I'll leave that to the IT experts. But I have a gripe with people who believe they can pass wafer-thin shit off as substantive legislation.

This doesn't do anything. So don't do it. Leave it to individual nations. You don't need a UN resolution to tell us that's what you're doing here.

I can fully agree with you on that point. There's actually quite a few things about this resolution that I disagree with and TBH, I'm leaning against it. That doesn't give you the right to be snippy - and it DEFINATELY doesn't give you the right for the personal and short attacks that you have so far made against it.

The arguments against it so far have been either hateful, ignorant, arrogant, personal, with the odd one actually being correct (the issue of the $100 computer being a less than wonderful proposed solution, and the issue of useless recommendation resolutions). You are no better than any of them right now. As such, the ludicrosity of this debate against the resolution will ensure that it does pass.

I am not speaking for Powerhungry Chipmunks.

PC's resolutions to which I assume you're alluding DO do something. They bind the power of the UN. The UN can still legislate on IT matters after ITEE passes; it cannot legislate in certain tax matters now. There is a distinct difference. This is why, in my reply to Forgottenlord, I made the point that resolutions should be substantive "or administrative". I would class "Representation in Taxation" and its predecessor as the latter. ITEE is neither.

Microcredit Bazaar?

regarding "5, (sub-points 5.1 and 5.3)" -

I fail to see the value of technology developed by a "not-for-profit" organization. Is this some sort of back-handed commentary leveled at consumer-aimed corporate technology? Are the esteemed members Love and esterele suggesting that technology developed for profit is inferior (ie; created with obsolecence in mind, in order to market the "next great improvement?")

Further, why would corporations provide technology and support service, gratis? Advertisement?! Why would they need recognition, if they aren't going to profit from the effort?

regarding "6 (all sub-points)" -

Provisioning all nations with unlimited technology isn't practical (Nor particularly wise, for that matter.) Socialist idealism alone will not build the
infrastructure necessary to communicate new developments as they arise. Further, some developing nations are not as ... "well-wishing" in their endeavours. Universally shared technology opens the door to seemingly-innocuous technologies being perverted into clever weapons.

What mechanism will be in place to ensure that economically "under-privileged" nations will not defraud other participant nations when their loans come due? Will you invade?

Assbaquador vehemently opposes the IT Education Act. It is an ironically draconian proposal clothed in socialist rhetoric. We will not risk the sovereignty of our nation for the whimsical, utopian-idealist fantasy, proposed by the esteemed members, Love and esterele. WE beseech other members of the UN to oppose this motion.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be nudged on to actually try and actively work to implement some system.

What constitutes a nudge? Because Love and esterel has been very explicit about the non-doing-anythingness of this one. That, to me, includes not nudging. And if you're implying it does, then is it not subject to the same criticisms as if it did something? I'm curious, not probing. I just am uneasy then about this proposal moving from empty speculation into admittedly very soft 'nudging'.

That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen you make. Just about every resolution has that same flaw. If you already fully recognize same-sex marriages, you wouldn't be affected by resolution 12 when it went into place, thuse you could arguably claim it doesn't affect you. Now tell me, does your argument still hold for those resolutions?

1. I have made far more ridiculous arguments.
2. Yes, many other resolutions have that flaw. However,
a. I oppose them too;
b. the majority of them were not passed when I was a member, so my holding that view is less valid.
3. It's also not quite my point. It's not where they're doing this that I'm concerned about; it's where they're approaching it in a different way.
4. Ok, I'm wrong. I couldn't think of a real example for 3. Here's the best I could do.

A country has already put this into practice, and encourage IT education, etc. They are a very hot country, where people don't need clothes. This resolution urges them to consider clothing above computers. Should they be ashamed?

Ok, no, I couldn't think of one where it would be the case, so I guess ignore it.

Again, truth of every resolution ever passed.

Great. You'll have noticed I'm a fan of repeals. It being true of another resolution does not now invalidate the argument.

And yes there's a point to it. Some nations aren't necessarily considering it - and there is a certain amount of pressure that comes from the international community to develope such a system if a recommendation resolution is passed. So the "no's" aren't entirely ignoring it, they just don't have to follow it to the letter.

No, again, I wasn't making my point clearly. In a developed society with modern technology, there will be a demand for computer-literate workers. This is why Love and esterel has picked up on this issue, I would assume. Any government will then move to educate its workforce. Those that do not are either too poor to do so/otherwise constrained, in which case the resolution makes allowances for them anyhow, or too fucking stupid to be allowed to vote.

Because RL UN resolutions are either administrative or affect nations automatically. Please. He isn't making it international law, and it really is a "wouldn't it be nice" idea. Sheesh.

Yes, I know it is a "wouldn't it be nice" idea. That was my point. Yes, it would be nice. But it's not going to happen. And, in any case, if he believes in it, why doesn't he stand up for it?

You were just complaining about it being too specific, and now you're complaining about it being too vague.

I reserve the right to be duplicitous. Nonetheless, I was wrong: it is not vague. I retract that point.

There's 130 other resolutions that we've passed that they can see we DID do - so you can stop worrying about that - the non-members are well aware of what we do.

The non-members have:
1. tried to invade us all;
2. asked us to declare why we oppress our citizens;
3. ignored and laughed at us.

Furthermore, my point isn't about what has happened, but what is happening. It's an ongoing process, and if we are perceived as merely existing as a talking shop, then that will never be positive. Were I not a member, I would not wish to join something where people would not actually do anything.

As such, the ludicrosity of this debate against the resolution will ensure that it does pass.

Ok, answer me one thing. Do you honestly believe that had I argued brilliantly and vocally against it, it would have failed? If so, then I will change my vote to for and resign. Honestly, however, I feel this resolution would have passed no matter how persuasive the forum vote.

Quote:
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Caradune

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED by the number of children who do not have basic information technology education,

-B- CONVINCED that the mastering of Information Technology is essential in the education of every child worldwide and for his/her own future

-C- FULLY AWARE of the difference of technology level between member nations

-D- SEEKING to minimize the cost of the following clauses

-E- FULLY AWARE of the availability of cheap, basic and low power-consumption computers designed by non-profit organizations


-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to secure that each child, aged at least 12, receive some information technology education adapted to the national technology level. This can be integrated into National Education programs,

-2- ENCOURAGES STRONGLY all nations to secure for every child, aged at least 12, some access in school to information technology school equipment with educational software and Internet access,

-3- SUPPORTS operations which provide children, personal computers with Internet access and educational software, or more powerful high-tech educational tool, when the cost for the Nations will not be significant. Computers, Internet access or others tools could be bought or rented at a very modest price for children not able to afford them

-4- RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts

-5- ENCOURAGES all Nations to try to limit the cost induced by this resolution, by different means such as:

-5.1- providing cheap, basic and low power-consumption computers designed by non-profit organization as those that already exist

-5.2- Running the computers mentioned in this resolution with needed open-source software, freeware or software graciously paid or discounted by companies, as a sponsoring operation for them or by non-profit organization

-5.3- Proposing some non-profit organization or some companies to graciously offer some computers, internet access and technical support, as a sponsoring operation for them which can prove more efficient than a TV ad campaign

-6- ENCOURAGES all developed Nations to help developing Nations to implement this program, by different means such as:

-6.1- Sharing technologies with nations who don't have yet access to them

-6.2- Giving access to these nations to a low rate loan/bonds system, which will be repaid in middle term by the growth of the amount of taxes collected due to the growth of information technology economic sector

Co-authored by Love and esterel


Sorry if there is a topic on this already, but I couldn't find one.



Sorry, but I must vote against this proposal. Since when did computers become a more basic need than food, clothing, medicine and shelter? Please, next time try and submit a better written proposal. Try to include all the truely basic necesities, then most likely I'd be willing to vote for it. Hey, I'm all for helping the poor and underpriviledged. Good day and GOD bless!

Sorry, but I must vote against this proposal. Since when did computers become a more basic need than food, clothing, medicine and shelter? Please, next time try and submit a better written proposal. Try to include all the truely basic necesities, then most likely I'd be willing to vote for it. Hey, I'm all for helping the poor and underpriviledged. Good day and GOD bless!

The resolution actually agrees with you.

RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts

Sorry, but I must vote against this proposal. Since when did computers become a more basic need than food, clothing, medicine and shelter? Please, next time try and submit a better written proposal. Try to include all the truely basic necesities, then most likely I'd be willing to vote for it. Hey, I'm all for helping the poor and underpriviledged. Good day and GOD bless![/QUOTE]

-4- RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts.

I hope this assuages the honourable delegate's concern.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Against. a better proposal would be to ensure all children learn the basics: reading, writing and arithmatic. there has been many a time where i have gone through a supermarket and the computers have stuffed up and the checkout opperator wouldnt have a clue where to start adding up, especially without a calculator. you put a emphasis on learning and relying on computers, whole countries will crumble in a moment if there is a sustained power shortage

with respect to the ambassador from L & E, if this passes this becomes UN law which can't be ignored. (ooc: thats what we're told in this game).

even in its toothless state it will still have an effect on nations who will have to enforce it in some measure.

as i've said before the only people that will benefit from this is the companies supplying the computers and the software.

is this really what we want to show the nations outside the UN?

Fair enough, but doesn't this [resolutions that do nothing, --GG] just feed the rampant cynicism towards the UN?

Do we have to answer rethorical questions?

Some nations are sovereignists and don't want the UN to impose anything, others are federalists and tend to think resolutions must do something.

Both position are respectable, LAE has no position in this debate, and it's why we can support/propose both mild (natsov-friendly) and significant/strong (violating natsov) resolutions

But that's never an excuse to write crap proposal that don't do anything. If that was your intention from the beginning, then you shouldn't have (co) written it. Personally I rather write a resolution that pisses of a third of the UN population but that actually does something, than waste the UN's time with a fluffy resolution that has no effect anyway. Why force things down their throat if you allow them to spit it out or keep their mouth shut?

Do we have to answer rethorical questions?

I may have been a tad tongue-in-cheek with that comment, Groot.


Steve Perry
President
Republic of Teruchev

I hate this issue so badly because

1. Can you imagine how many computers would have to be made to go through with this issue? MILLIONS!!
2. I'm in highschool and not even I get my own personal computer with internet access and all this high-level education program junk.
3. Kids will probably find a way to get through the blocked web pages and will be using the computers for things they shouldn't be.


JUST VOTE NO!!!

On behalf of The Most Benevolant One, the Founder, I must vote a resounding NO on this issue! The people of Lisoy Sedoso Stongly urge the representatives of our fellow United Nations to strike down this foolish Resolution.
First off, we agree with the other who have spoken to the matter of there being more relavant matters for underprivaliged nations. Food, power, water, medicine....NOT computers and technology of the sort. This is a foolhearty way to spend our funds. This must be at least revamped to include stipulations such as your homeless, poverty and quality of life must be of a certain level to recieve such help. A nation of people that drink foul water and commit crimes agains humanity must not be able to expand thier technology base on our wallet!
Also, those of us who are software producing nations, this harms our people by giving these people freeware and open source products. This will lead to a world revolution that will destroy our ecomomies. The world computer industry will spiral down and advances in the technologies will go away, because these advances come from moneis obtained from selling hardware and software.

Once again, fellow UN members strike this motion down. Think of your futures.

I may have been a tad tongue-in-cheek with that comment, Groot.

So had I :)

As a smaller nation I am hopeful that the larger nations would be willing to share technologies with my nation. However, this resolution provides another way for my country to increase its debt by taking out "loans" from other nations. Additionally, what small, developing nation would be willing to spend that type of money on something as frivolous as computers and nationwide internet access. If one of my citizens desires the internet, that's well and good, but my government refuses to spend our limited resources on something so unnecessary. I say the small nations keep their money to feed their people!!!

Oric IV
Ambassador from Arduo

Well, Im for it because my town has cut most of the computer classes in school. Honestly in real life you will use programs like Word and Publisher and Frontpage, and if people dont learn at a young age how to use these things they will be like most older people today, unable to learn the full usages of these programs and what you can do with them.

I am for it.

We just have problems with 6.1, the sharing technology. It is not always wise to do so.

OK, I voted against this one earlier and here is my reason.

Picture this. Maloko is the eldest son of Mgau a tribal herdsman. They live in a tribal village where they mainly barter their farm produce with the local community. Theirs is a poor village and has no power, gas or items we in modern Venerable Libertarians take for granted.

Maloko if this passes will be entitled to a pc. What a wonderful gift from the UN.

NOW HOW THE FECK IS HE TO POWER IT, NEVERMIND CONNECT TO THE FRIGGIN INTERNET? AND WHAT BLOODY USE IS IT TO HIM WHEN HE PLIES HIS TRADE PULLING THE UDDERS OF HIS MALNOURISHED CATTLE????

YOU FLUFFY IDIOTS DONT THINK! DO YOU?

Now my rant is subsiding i can safely say i will not be supporting this. Aid to get power to his village, measures to increase his wellbeing and that of his villagers I will support. Throwing PC's at them will simply not do this and would arguebly lead to the Villages like the one in my example becoming ghost towns bereft of youth as they all flock to the cities to work for the DATA entry corporation.

VL.

I voted for it!

As a new member nation with some interest in this issue, we feel it incumbent upon us to point out that, in the ''real'' world, there is are already computers now available which can be hand-cranked like certain ''emergency radios''. These cost an average of US $100, and are being used in Africa for a similar program of IT awareness. Therefore such a program as this proposal puts forward is feasible, and could be developed within the parameters of Social Aid, Education, or any other appropriate resolution.

That being said, we do recognize that the issue of national sovereignty in NS can be provocative. Yet the basic idea of the proposal is not necessarily antithetical to national sovereignty, merely (but importantly) a logical extension of the basic right to education. For any leader who hides behind the shield of national sovereignty in obstructing the application or logical extension of the application of resolutions already in place, and to which these nations must submit, the question must be raised concerning the willingness to truly apply resolutions in effect.

We would respectfully raise two final questions: first, that our esteemed and surely more experienced colleagues consider the re-wording of their proposal. Some aspects seem vague, or perhaps under-developed. We are considering voting against the proposal as it stands, notwithstanding our agreement with its intent. (There is much argument on this issue, openly broadcast on PPCC-TV for all interested). If this proposal passes into resolution, we will abide, but we would prefer the revision of this proposal (if it fails) so that, with clarity of intent, strength of purpose, and unassailable wording, it can withstand any or all criticisms.

P.S. we have been asked to remind all and sundry that it's ''fluffy'', not ''fluffie''.

The As-yet unnamed delegate from Psychotic Pineapple.

[QUOTE=Pychotic Pineapple]
is are

People still don't realise, this program is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to execute, non-profit organisations do not have the resources or capacity to make millions of computers, not even combined. The order neccesary for a global public school PC distribution would be a riddiculous amount that could only be handled by corporations who already had that objective.

As well, it's completely immoral, but we've already had that debate.

We rise in opposition to this proposal, for among many reasons this one:

-3- SUPPORTS operations which provide children, personal computers with Internet access and educational software, or more powerful high-tech educational tool, when the cost for the Nations will not be significant. Computers, Internet access or others tools could be bought or rented at a very modest price for children not able to afford them

We are categorically opposed to providing children with Internet access.
Have you seen what's on the Internet these days?

This resolution does, in fact, do something: it allows its supporters to enjoy some "warm fuzzies" without any significant cost to themselves.

Furthermore, if we follow through on its suggestions, the recipients of cheap, hand-cranked, freeware-operated computers may also enjoy some warm fuzzies.

Thus, it creates the equation 'IT education=Good Thing', which can only be a Good Thing.

Secondly, the resolution appears to have annoyed many nations which argue from the point of view of their economies.

This is precisely how a certain RL government, with which I am somewhat fed up, argues.

Consequently, the resolution's success can be seen as one in the eye for those governments who believe their citizens live in an economy, not a society.

The Government of Lloegeyr therefore supports this resolution.

This resolution does, in fact, do something: it allows its supporters to enjoy some "warm fuzzies" without any significant cost to themselves.

Furthermore, if we follow through on its suggestions, the recipients of cheap, hand-cranked, freeware-operated computers may also enjoy some warm fuzzies.

Thus, it creates the equation 'IT education=Good Thing', which can only be a Good Thing.

Secondly, the resolution appears to have annoyed many nations which argue from the point of view of their economies.

This is precisely how a certain RL government, with which I am somewhat fed up, argues.

Consequently, the resolution's success can be seen as one in the eye for those governments who believe their citizens live in an economy, not a society.

The Government of Lloegeyr therefore supports this resolution.
Yep, Theres a lot of "Hand Cranking" going on with this proposal. would someone be so good as to pass the hand cream? All this cranking plays havok with the skin!

The Democratic Republic of Subsector Angelus strongly encrouages that all countries who voted FOR this resoution rethink that decision. There is such a thing as too much equality. It's called communism. The inequalities in our countries define our significance in the UN. Non-UN countries can use this to size up the UN in their regions, and decide on the equality and inequality of our nations, just as a simple look at numbers defines the tool you need to put on a bolt or nut. That is what inequality and equality is. A tool. And the money needed to invest in this is ridiculous! Countries, possibly including mine, will be put into debt. And think of the jobs. The computer companies would be so high in sales that thousands of profitable buisinesses will go under. Job loss rates would skyrocket. Computer companies may even be pushing themselves to far and forcing themselves bankrupt! We say no! We formally yet *bangs podium* strongly oppose this act. Our nation will go down in the ranks if this passes. Nations can feed themselves when they have the money. But should they be forced to feed themselves when they have no money? No. No.

and besides ive got to spend money putting down a rebellion in my capital city

Gruenberg, ok i will answer you:

from #130 Global Food Distribution Act:



I voted FOR this resolution and had supported it in the forum
This proposition requires the total elimination of tarrifs on food, so this proposition violate the national sovereignty of 30 000 nations.

You and many NSO members supported it on the forum, depiste the fact that it was obvioulsy the opposite of the NSO principles and attitude for most previous legislation

Then i suppose that NSO and NSO members are not anymore advocating Natsov

It's time to put the idea that we members of the NSO are no longer promoting National Sovereignty to bed. While it is true that many members of the NSO (myself included) supported the GFDA, it also was a resolution dealing with an issue of an international nature, The IT Education Act on the other hand does not. It is an attempt to interfere with a nation's school systems which is not an international issue. And that is the reason that The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

People still don't realise, this program is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to execute, non-profit organisations do not have the resources or capacity to make millions of computers, not even combined. The order neccesary for a global public school PC distribution would be a riddiculous amount that could only be handled by corporations who already had that objective.

As well, it's completely immoral, but we've already had that debate.

It's wonderful to see that you're listening to this conversation. You should check out some of the ways that real life nations (http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/cfs/about.asp) have implemented a similar program - perhaps the computers aren't new, but they are new enough to supply the needs of schools.

This resolution does, in fact, do something: it allows its supporters to enjoy some "warm fuzzies" without any significant cost to themselves.

Furthermore, if we follow through on its suggestions, the recipients of cheap, hand-cranked, freeware-operated computers may also enjoy some warm fuzzies.

Thus, it creates the equation 'IT education=Good Thing', which can only be a Good Thing.

Secondly, the resolution appears to have annoyed many nations which argue from the point of view of their economies.

This is precisely how a certain RL government, with which I am somewhat fed up, argues.

Consequently, the resolution's success can be seen as one in the eye for those governments who believe their citizens live in an economy, not a society.

The Government of Lloegeyr therefore supports this resolution.

IT education can't only be a good thing, the fact is you're still taking a percentage of the earnings of the people in order to create a program in the schools that wont be universally used anyway. Income taxation in general is immoral, unless you have the direct and willing consent of every person under the general public to take that percentage and put it towards this program then it is a direct violation of the inalienable right of property. Although for me it doesn't matter, all the schools in my country are privately owned.

IT education can't only be a good thing, the fact is you're still taking a percentage of the earnings of the people in order to create a program in the schools that wont be universally used anyway. Income taxation in general is immoral, unless you have the direct and willing consent of every person under the general public to take that percentage and put it towards this program then it is a direct violation of the inalienable right of property. Although for me it doesn't matter, all the schools in my country are privately owned.

Unless you are living in an anarchy, your government is needed. The government needs to have some way to fund itself as, quite frankly, its business is not goods but to serve the people. Their pay is only from taxation. Now, if you want to claim that governments should be disbanded and anarchy rules, fine. That's your decision and you have every right to prefer that system. However, if you don't believe that, THINK it through - how is the government to operate, to have a military, to have a police force or some other operation. HOW can any of those services be provided if no one is paying for them via taxes?

This resolution is all well and good, but I have to agree with many: it doesn't really belong as an international standard. It unneedingly conflicts with a nation's sovereignty over an issue that, when compared to some of the problems faced by nations, is rather trivial. I also think your second assertion:
"-B- CONVINCED that the mastering of Information Technology is essential in the education of every child worldwide and for his/her own future"
is not free-standing in any way, shape, or form... you could write a document 10 times the size of your entire resolution just trying to justify that one statement.

I feel this resolution not only invades the rights of a nation to teach as they see fit but also squanders tax money that may be needed for other issues...I don't know about everyone else but I can't afford to keep taxing because someone else feels other ppl arn't tunning their nation as they like. I voted no and i strongly urge those who haven't to follow this and those of you who have to reconsider.

Dear me! This proposal invades national education systems, squanders tax money, conflicts with national sovereignty, supports immoral acts (ie, taxation) and, worse, roughens the skin on some baby-soft hands (better than treading on some sensitive toes, I suppose). I hadn't realised it was so multi-faceted.

That's because it isn't. It doesn't do anything. If it passes, nations will be able to ignore it, follow it slavishly or (and I think this is the nearest it comes to an effect) think about the issues it raises.

In short, it's an ambit claim: the sort of thing used in industrial negotiations to notify all concerned of a goal that will, at some time, be pursued. Viewing it in that context, my government remains committed to supporting the IT Education Act.

The problem with this bill is...

-6.1- Sharing technologies with nations who don't have yet access to them

...sounds good in theory, however why should my country have its patents violated? This bill discourages private enterprise in science and technology because of the destruction of the nation's patents.

If this bill passes into U.N. law then my nation will be pressured by my people to withdraw from the U.N. The bills passed through the U.N. must not infringe on my people's rights. My people value their freedom.

Vote down this measure, unless you are ready to surrender your industrial might.

-A- CONCERNED by the number of children who do not have basic information technology education,

Why? I appreciate they go on to try to justify this later, but as they stuck it first, they must deal with it first. There is no basis for this information, as they cannot possibly know how many children are receiving such an education. Furthermore, they are confusing 'education' with 'training'; one is an academic form of learning, the other a vocational one. Undoubtedly computers are parts of both.

Also, if we are to believe that few children receive this education, then we are reaching an important conclusion: that government priorities largely lie elsewhere. That would then imply that for some governments, IT is less important. Well of course it is. So why not let them be so inclined? Quite probably, some societies are totally unused to computers. There is no need for them to provide this sort of education for their children. Education is so inherently cultural that I really do object to attempted UN micromanagement.

-B- CONVINCED that the mastering of Information Technology is essential in the education of every child worldwide and for his/her own future

Again, why? They don't demonstrate any need for IT training (which has risen from 'basic' to 'master[ful]' in one clause). They don't explain why this is of particular education to 'every child', and for their future. Until they do so, it seems a bit far-fetched to be 'convinced' of the matter. Furthermore, if it's so important, won't some governments, crazily, have thought of this too? The resolution authors may be clever, but I doubt they're world-conquering geniuses. They may be ahead of their time, but I doubt it's by much. And, then, if others have realized this importance, perhaps the lamentable numbers referred to in ICA have a reason beyond mere neglect: some can't afford such schemes.

-C- FULLY AWARE of the difference of technology level between member nations

Really, are they fully aware? Because it seems to me they're basing all their assumptions on MT nations, which admittedly probably make up a majority of UN nations. But, seriously, what about Cobdenia? What about DLE? Why, in societies where computers haven't been invented, or where they're all tied to neural functions anyway, should we believe IT training is so important? All resolutions are going to ignore someone, but this seems to be unnecessarily techist in its approach.

-D- SEEKING to minimize the cost of the following clauses

Here's a way to minimise the cost: don't implement them.

But also, fine, that's perfectly admirable. But it's an admittance that this does constitute micromanagement which is going to cost the government money. Given that, it might be best to minimise the cost by saving the government's money on UN administrative matters (after all, I get paid for standing here and shouting) and acknowledge, that if it's an entirely national policy anyway, they should leave it up to nations.

-E- FULLY AWARE of the availability of cheap, basic and low power-consumption computers designed by non-profit organizations

Maybe, and I know they've got some RL examples. But guess what? Surprise surprise, there are none in Gruenberg. Oh dear. So, then, this is another assumption that highlights the specificity of their paradigm. That's great, I should add, but it's a wildly unsuitable basis for international law. I should also add that dependence on NPOs isn't necessarily something good. They're unaccountable, they're financially liable, and many have second or sub-agendas. We can't always leave it to the charities.

-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to secure that each child, aged at least 12, receive some information technology education adapted to the national technology level. This can be integrated into National Education programs,

Again, I'm going with the semantics of education to start with. Much IT 'education' is really training. Is this sort of vocational attitude something we wish to encourage at age 12? Maybe, in some countries. And maybe not in others. Those others constitute far too great a section of the GA to be ignored, and yet that's precisely what this proposal does. It ignores those who would actually teach their children the value of life, and instead sits them down in front of Excel, even when they have no chance of ever using IT skills later on.

And adapted to the national technology level? Again, if this is a concern, then it demonstrates a distinct unsuitability for UN law. It's really just paying lip service to the idea, given that there are too many nations whose technology level make any resolution of this kind irrelevant.

Also, nothing about adult education? Seems a shame. After all, in some countries there is a technological revolution, and people are needed to retrain and develop IT skills.

-2- ENCOURAGES STRONGLY all nations to secure for every child, aged at least 12, some access in school to information technology school equipment with educational software and Internet access,

Right, Internet access. But you make no mention of what safeguards we are using. In fact, given some previous resolutions on freedom of information and the like, limiting what children view may be slightly tricky. Furthermore, how are we to know this will be used for educational purposes? I, for example, know a student who wastes much of his internet access playing an online game called NationStates. Is that something we wish to be encouraging?

Also, why does this need to be in school? Clubs and societies might be a far better place for this sort of thing, especially given the debatable educational merit. Schools may not always be suitable for installing electronics: some are very old (as most nations consider education a priority). By limiting this to schools, you're restricting the ability of the programs to appeal to larger numbers (as some children have to travel kilometres to school) and also missing out on an opportunity to allow children to explore computers in an extra-curricular environment, which might make the experience more fun.

-3- SUPPORTS operations which provide children, personal computers with Internet access and educational software, or more powerful high-tech educational tool, when the cost for the Nations will not be significant. Computers, Internet access or others tools could be bought or rented at a very modest price for children not able to afford them

Right, this is nice. But now we're kitting out all our kids with PCs? Not on my fucking budget you're not. What does 'more powerful high-tech educational tool' mean? Aside from the missed pluralisation (I assume), this is still hopelessly vague. Does it include Ion Cannons? What does it mean? And you're expecting to do all this...yet keep the cost insignificant? Good luck. Children who can't afford them? That's most of the child population.

-4- RECCOMENDS all nations to be prudent by ensuring that these actions don’t undermine or reduce nutritional, health or clothing efforts

Misspelling of RECOMMENDS in a resolution about education. Also, thanks for the advice: whilst this clause seems 'nice', it is in fact a poor choice. It admits that there are greater priorities for governments. Well of course there are. And, guess what? We'd realized that. That's the reason for our spending allocations, not just sheer technophobia. What about national defence? What about teaching our children the One True Light of Wenaism? What about spending on sports? What about other academic subjects? I'm sure the authors would agree: they're all more important. Which is precisely why we spend our money on them. You want to buy computers? Fine, buy them.

-5- ENCOURAGES all Nations to try to limit the cost induced by this resolution, by different means such as:

Again, you're admitting the cost of it. The cost for a scheme whose use you still haven't proven.

-5.1- providing cheap, basic and low power-consumption computers designed by non-profit organization as those that already exist

Another clause that doesn't make sense. And you're going to lecture us on education? Or did GruenSoft Word Grammar Check not pick that one up? No, it probably didn't. Because it can't. There are many aspects to education, and communication, albeit in electronic form, is still dependent on language. There are some who would have been unable to type up and post that clause. They may have been able to make it make sense.

I don't mean to mock your English. It's fantastic for a non-native speaker to be able to come up with this stuff. My...is it Portugese? is abysmal: I couldn't ask where the toilet is, let alone compose international legislation. So bravo. But the occasional grammatical slips make the point that when two computer-literate people have trouble understanding one another, it is not just the medium that is at fault, but the language difficulties: that, for me, must be an educational priority before we start thinking about teaching our children 'All your base...' jokes.

Back on track, I do not believe absolutely in non-profit organizations. They are not accountable to voters or share-holders, and many have religious or other agendas. And those that already exist are going to be pretty far-stretched given the potential demands of this proposal: maybe you should considered setting some more up?

-5.2- Running the computers mentioned in this resolution with needed open-source software, freeware or software graciously paid or discounted by companies, as a sponsoring operation for them or by non-profit organization

What's in it for GruenSoft to sponsor these operations? You still haven't demonstrated the utility of IT training, so I think hard-nosed corporate animals will be even more sceptical. I also dislike the customary mention of open-source. Open-source projects are usually impenetrable to all but highly knowledgeable individuals. That's not a problem per se. But as you haven't included anything in this proposal about TRAINING NEW TEACHERS TO COPE WITH ALL THIS SHIT, it's hard to believe that when little Timmy's PC goes up the jacksy, Mrs Bloggs will be able to get past the "OMG Bill is a fag LOLZ" jokes printed on the motherboard.

You haven't dealt with the logistics of this: distribution and maintenance especially. And until 35 years' time, when all these little Linuses are all keyed up and ready to go, you're probably introducing a sea of information into a society unable to deal with it. Who is to teach? Who is to install? I don't see enough infrastructure being present in anything but societies who already have adapted to the tech revolution.

-5.3- Proposing some non-profit organization or some companies to graciously offer some computers, internet access and technical support, as a sponsoring operation for them which can prove more efficient than a TV ad campaign

Oh, I see, now you're justifying it. You're going to allow these companies to advertise in schools, to children as young as 12. Actually, I suggested earlier GruenSoft might not be interested. Now I'm sure they will be. Unrivalled access to push expensive luxuries like computer games to young children who will then demand them from poor parents is a pretty good deal. You're encouraging advertising at the pre-teen level. This is a tactic that's widely considered deeply disreputable in the advertising industry. I do not want my schools turned into Pentium Processor commercial.

-6- ENCOURAGES all developed Nations to help developing Nations to implement this program, by different means such as:

Why should we? Why is it in developed nations interests to aid developing nations in this regard? Given most developing nations have poor IT infrastructure, it's not like we'd be doing them much of a service, anyway. And isn't it a mistake to be encouraging largely irrelevant skills in nations where finding education is harder? I would suggest that the priorities here are skewed: the clause you created stressing the importance of nutrition, health and clothing is applicable to your entire proposal: here, nutrition, health and clothing are areas developing nations should concentrate on training in. After all, if their country is hungry, no number of Apples will feed them. (Ho. ho. ho.)

-6.1- Sharing technologies with nations who don't have yet access to them

In what way? Corporations aren't going to give away stuff (unless you're suggesting we give them free advertising in poor nations too) and we're unlikely to want to simply give countries technologies when they really should be buying them. And what does 'access' mean? Because one country doesn't have the latest version of Photoshop, should we be giving it to them? Also, what about the incompatibility of languages and cultures? Such software may not always be capable of being shared.

-6.2- Giving access to these nations to a low rate loan/bonds system, which will be repaid in middle term by the growth of the amount of taxes collected due to the growth of information technology economic sector

This one is fascinating. You wait until the final clause of the entire proposal to introduce some justification: economic growth. Interesting. I would suggest, however, that sectoral growth is dependent on other factors: resources, demand, and overall economic strength. You may produce thousands of IT-trained people, but if there are no jobs for them to have, it's rather pointless. For example, your IT training is coming at the expense of training towards manual jobs. So be it: manufacturing is so last year in some countries. That would imply, though, that training people in an area in which no jobs exist is useless. That may well be what you're doing.

Furthermore, if these nations are so dependent on others, then how on earth do they have any kind of infrastructure to support IT development? What's more than likely is they don't. As such, it's going to be pretty hard for them to develop at all. Furthermore, why should developed nations be encouraging competition to their industries? Your argument seems to be "give them computers...so they can sell you computers later!" No thanks.

I do not believe this proposal will promote sectoral IT growth significantly. It will produce more trained individuals, sure. It will not implement infrastructure where none exists (you have made sure of this by excluding any mention of infrastructural development, of course). It will not create demand for jobs: even basic economics dictates that supply alone is not enough to vitalise industry. Also, you have given no reasons as to why, even if this growth did occur, that would be beneficial. Why not encourage arms trade, or drugs trade? Or is it best to concentrate on IT, the purveyor of genuine academic material such as The Anarchist's Cookbook and snuff videos.

----

Right. That's all I could think of. It's mostly lame, or highly dubious. But even were it not, even had I made one good point, it wouldn't matter. That's why I haven't been that substantive in my criticisms: wouldn't matter. Because anything and everything I object to I am invited to ignore. As such, every criticism can be met by "So don't." One can take issue with something that forces a country in a particular direction, or affects a particular thing; everything I do based on this proposal is my choice, and as such I cannot legitimately criticise it on that basis.

So, does it matter? There have been a spate of "do nothing" resolutions of late. They are harmless, and as such, not harmful. Does it matter?

Yes, it does. This is a waste of space. It is a waste of UN time. It is unneeded bureaucracy, and that is damaging to the UN. When we voted to repeal PoDA, a major argument used was redundancy. Not everyone agreed with that, but many did, and as it was the basis of the repeal, it is reasonable to extrapolate that the UN democratically decided that waste legislation was bad. They are going to decide, in this case, that waste legislation is good; so be it.

I have reacted quite extraordinarily, in the full meaning of this word, to this proposal. It is mild, and it can and will be ignored. There's nothing to get upset about. And that is my problem: there is nothing to get upset about. We shouldn't always have massive arguments and histrionic debate, but we should at least have something discuss. There is nothing here to discuss, because we can ignore it.

I'm a sovereigntist, and often I've expressed my dismay at proposals that dare to try to do something. But I would still rather debate them. I have sovereign control, and I can resign from the UN at any point, should I wish. By staying in, I cede some sovereignty, and I use the remainder to fight for my citizens' rights, as I was appointed to do. Some choose to do so in different ways; so be it. But I will not simply sit around and waft hot air. If you don't want to do anything, don't do it. If you want to write specific proposals that are too narrow for international law, don't turn them into international law.

And, ultimately, if you believe in something, stand up for it. It's the only way anything will change: if you don't stand up for and shout for and fight for what you want, and what you think is right, then you forfeit the right to complaint when nobody else stands up for you. If you believe in spreading the technological revolution, then fucking say so, and so something about. I'll probably fight you over it, but I'll rejoice in doing so, because I'm engaging in international dialogue, and that, not hiding under the covers for fear of offending anyone, is the way international progress is made.

As it is, there is nothing to discuss here, and so I must step out of the debate: I'm getting worked up over something with nothing to get worked up over. One day, I hope you will have the courage of your convictions to believe that they should become a part of international law, and that we should debate their right to that place. Then, I will be interested in rejoining the discussion: and, who knows? My IT sector could always do with a boost.

As is my wont, I am opposed to micromanagement of the education system of the Federation, regardless of how appealing this idea will be to many nations and how palatable the authors tried to make it. This is similar to the stance taken on the "Sex Education Act" and "Right to Learn About Evolution".

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I concur entirely this act is already as weak as drain water anyway and is merely useless U.N bureacracy; though in theory a nice idea.

I am of a mixed opinion on this resolution.

Is this an "international" issue? (Understanding that the UN resolutions only apply to UN member nations and that "international" really means "inter member.") On the one hand I say absolutely not, it is a local educational issue. On the other hand I would say that the "internet" (can we even suggest that the internet even exists without invoking RW reference violations) belongs to the NSUN or at least to all the collective members of the NSUN and it is in the interest of the NSUN to keep the everyone within the NSUN aware of its proper use in order to get full use of the benefits of the internet for NSUN members.

And what, pray tell, are the benefits of the internet for members? Well for big, powerful members nothing beats the power of the internet to bring a salesperson to every door of every consumer within the international community of the NSUN. Therefore it is in the interest of powerful nations, (and being powerful the interest of Tzorsland) to ensure that all we get as broad a market for our products as possible.

Is this a fundamental human right? Probably not. Honestly, this is not something I would go to war over. There are probably a plethora of nations in the NSUN that have complete control over their media, and we don't get into a huff over that. There may even some nations that are completely commercial free on all it's media outlets preventing the goods of my nation from being advertised there. Again, not something I would go to war over, although perhaps a UN resolution is in order here.

Look, I like to be as greedy as the next person, but I have to be honest here. If you are rich and powerful, you have a vested interest to make sure that all those poorer nations are suficiently advanced to be able to buy your products, and has the capacity to order those products in spite of the annoyance of the local government. If you are not, I would highly reccomend voting NAY. Hey it's your economy. It's an unfair tax on the have nots, because the haves already have the resolution in place.

YOU DECIDE.

I'm voting YEA. Sorry about that you poor emprovrished nations.

I would urge that member nations vote against this resolution, as it wholly fails to address the issue of the validity of the argument for developing nations, and those without an industrial sector based on high-skilled labor.

This resolution goes too far to advance interests of big business, and not far enough to help all member nations, and goes against the very ideal of the united nations.

We rise in opposition to this proposal, for among many reasons this one:



We are categorically opposed to providing children with Internet access.
Have you seen what's on the Internet these days?

LAE will use a joker here:p

http://test256.free.fr/hocek.jpg

I still can't get over the fact that this is a form of socialism. It mandates that all nations have to do a certain thing in their educational system and at a certain age, meanwhile not every nation has embraced the high levels of technology that some are happily equiped with. This is almost as bad as the No Child Left Behind Act that was so pitifully done on the part of the administration.

I still can't get over the fact that this is a form of socialism. It mandates that all nations have to do a certain thing in their educational system and at a certain age, meanwhile not every nation has embraced the high levels of technology that some are happily equiped with. This is almost as bad as the No Child Left Behind Act that was so pitifully done on the part of the administration.
OOC: It never cease to amaze me how often and incongruously the 'this is socialism' complaint gets trotted out by people who havean objection to something.

Regarding the resolution at hand, a regional comrade had this to say:

Yeah. It's the Civilization Advance Tree way of thinking. "Obviously if they have Microprocessor, we don't need to give them Sanitation or Labour Unions, because those are both prerequisites!"

Microcredit Bazaar?
Microcredit Bazaar and this are largely not comparable. Microcredit Bazaar set up a service for nations to use if they wished--while this would set up recommendations for nations to enforce if they wish. There's a fundamental difference between putting a resolution with all ENCOURAGES clauses, and a resolution which "CREATES" something that isn't enforced upon nations.

And, to save you the time of looking it up, it's that same with UN Small Business, and the draft of Promotion of the Arts, they're about services the UN can provide nations rather than UN laws imposed on them. If anything, they're dodging the National Sovereignty debate altogether, since they have little to no commentary in them on how member nations should shape their laws (I want to keep the focus of the resolutions primarily on the services provided).

I agree with Gruenberg. This issue seemed particularly long and confusing and I question how many nations will truly gain anything from it if it is passed.

Unless you are living in an anarchy, your government is needed. The government needs to have some way to fund itself as, quite frankly, its business is not goods but to serve the people. Their pay is only from taxation. Now, if you want to claim that governments should be disbanded and anarchy rules, fine. That's your decision and you have every right to prefer that system. However, if you don't believe that, THINK it through - how is the government to operate, to have a military, to have a police force or some other operation. HOW can any of those services be provided if no one is paying for them via taxes?

I directly specified a percentage of the people's earnings(income tax). There are other kinds of tax, trade taxes, and sales tax. These are the only taxes taken and are used to fund the military and most basic services such as municipal water, any service that isn't essential to life however, is privately owned. As well, the government deals alot of heroine, and that helps brings in more money then the taxes.

Microcredit Bazaar and this are largely not comparable. Microcredit Bazaar set up a service for nations to use if they wished--while this would set up recommendations for nations to enforce if they wish. There's a fundamental difference between putting a resolution with all ENCOURAGES clauses, and a resolution which "CREATES" something that isn't enforced upon nations.

And, to save you the time of looking it up, it's that same with UN Small Business, and the draft of Promotion of the Arts, they're about services the UN can provide nations rather than UN laws imposed on them. If anything, they're dodging the National Sovereignty debate altogether, since they have little to no commentary in them on how member nations should shape their laws (I want to keep the focus of the resolutions primarily on the services provided).

Nonono, you misunderstand. Gruen was claiming that your resolutions were administrative in nature. Micrcredit Bazaar is not (though the vast majority of your resolutions are). It was not a shot at your resolutions, it was a reminder to Gruen that his generalization was incorrect.

I directly specified a percentage of the people's earnings(income tax). There are other kinds of tax, trade taxes, and sales tax. These are the only taxes taken and are used to fund the military and most basic services such as municipal water, any service that isn't essential to life however, is privately owned. As well, the government deals alot of heroine, and that helps brings in more money then the taxes.

You are, of course, speaking of your nation. I note that not every nation can have a massive heroine grow op to fund their government.

Now, are you telling me that the police are privately owned, or are you working in an anarchy? Dare I ask how they make their money? What about paying the massive number of auditors that need to keep track of all these sales and trade happenings and make sure that the total is balanced at the end o the year. How large is your military? What if you end up being at war? What if there's an epidemic? Are you going to let the poor die from this disease if they can't afford it? So many thousands of questions to ask.

Nonono, you misunderstand. Gruen was claiming that your resolutions were administrative in nature. Micrcredit Bazaar is not (though the vast majority of your resolutions are). It was not a shot at your resolutions, it was a reminder to Gruen that his generalization was incorrect.
Aye, I did misunderstand. I didn't think it was so much a shot at my proposals, but a claim that Microcredit Bazaar was a lot like this proposal in the way it approached National Sovereingty or law in general. I blame this misunderstanding on me not being able to track down the responses throughout this thread very well (stupid slow connection...). And on Checnya for not having been invaded.

Still, let me get this straight--so that in the future I understand what you mean by "administrative". Microcredit Bazaar would not be administrative because, as I said in my post, it doesn't really affect how nations tailor their laws--but--Representation in Tax would be? Do you mean "administrative" in that it deals with (like Nuclear Armaments, NSoT and UNSA) what the UN could or could not legislate on, or in how nations administer the law (like Definition of Marriage, or Civilian Rights Post-war or almost any other resolution)? Or neither?

Still, let me get this straight--so that in the future I understand what you mean by "administrative". Microcredit Bazaar would not be administrative because, as I said in my post, it doesn't really affect how nations tailor their laws--but--Representation in Tax would be? Do you mean "administrative" in that it deals with (like Nuclear Armaments, NSoT and UNSA) what the UN could or could not legislate on, or in how nations administer the law (like Definition of Marriage, or Civilian Rights Post-war or almost any other resolution)? Or neither?

Legislative is how nations administer the law, administrative are stuff like Nuclear Armaments, NSoT and UNSA. So basically, your understanding, now, is accurate.

Holy crud is this horribly written. Not only that it is a horrible proposal.

Let's take a look why...

information technology
n. Abbr. IT

The development, installation, and implementation of computer systems and applications

IT != computer literacy. Which is what I believe you are trying to convey in this proposal. There is no need to have compulsory education on how to set up a system, maintain databases, how to put a computer together, how to program...ect...ect...ect at the age of 12. There is a reason why most schools don't have it set up to begin with.

It's too costly. Even with some organisations making relatively cheap computers (the AMD/Redhat recent notification an example) those organisations will start to lose a significant amount of money with the high product value they will need to make. They will need to up prices considerably to make up for the losses over time. Any economist/accountant will tell you that. The AMD/Redhat example is able to make their 100 USD laptop due to the fact that they have a large market for their other product in Asia. They will be losing money in Africa, but making it up PLUS a profit in Asia.

This will ruin the purpose of Technology High Schools. If a main program of tech schools is undermined by making it a universal standard it will cause lower enrollment and possibly closures. This will lead to a period of higher unemployment for teaching personel and overpopulated schools. It will cost money to convert tech schools over to better suit normal high schools to reduce the overpopulation. It could also lower average grades of students by forcing students who would excel in tech school environment to sit in a learning environment not suited to their needs.

If this is ment for prepairing students for the future job market, well it's not so good either. The service industry is growing faster than the IT industry. Infact with the higher stress on learning IT skills the job market is flooded, and very volitile. Job security is not ensured, development of new products will be slowed to a minimum to keep jobs. A good example is Apple Inc. in the 90s. Also more and more jobs are now looking for liberal arts education. Companies want a well rounded individual working for them. They want tomorrow's managers/ceos/trustees...not tomorrow's tech support.

This proposal was not well thought out. If it passes I will make sure an anti-proposal is written to nulify it as soon as possible. This would be a huge economic strain on all nations and ruining of children's future ability to find and maintain jobs.

If it passes I will make sure an anti-proposal is written to nulify it as soon as possible. This would be a huge economic strain on all nations and ruining of children's future ability to find and maintain jobs.Instant repeal, huh? Won't work, not without a broad consensus first as to the neccessity of a repeal. I myself had a semi-broad consensus on the repeal of the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act, a full month after it passed, and the repeal still failed 3-2. (For more info, refer to the final item in my sig.)

I am abstaining on this issue. it's nice, but feel that infringes on national soverignty too much.

Plus given a chance, Love and esterel would turn the whole UN into their fluffie vision of everyone being the same. Moreover, IT skills are irrelevent in nations where basic food, water and medical supplies are not available. Forcing nations to spend on IT may be hugely inappropriate.

Agreed 100%. *Votes against*

This resolution is weak. It's not a resolution so much as a series of suggestions with no requirements. It's a waste of the UNs time, as it does not require anything and therefore accomplishes nothing. You may make these decisions for your own nation and to others via the forum, but a resolution full of suggestions is a waste of our time.

Instant repeal, huh? Won't work, not without a broad consensus first as to the neccessity of a repeal. I myself had a semi-broad consensus on the repeal of the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act, a full month after it passed, and the repeal still failed 3-2. (For more info, refer to the final item in my sig.)

I like how you focused on the very last thing I said, not the actual meat to the post.

Please vote AGAINST this bill. Not only is it somewhat poorly-written, it also has too many oversights with its idealism. We already have laws promoting education. This bill is basically one giant "encouragement" without any palpable material in it. Besides, some students may not even want IT education.

Don't get me wrong. I like IT education enough that I think an IT education bill should be passed in the end. Nevertheless, let's at least vote AGAINST this one for now, revise it, and then revote. This bill has serious flaws, and I am suprised how much support it is receiving from what is normally a much more thoughtful set of nations.

I don't want to make this into a pep rally or anything, but let's get more votes against the darn issue!!! Do you really want to waste your time and resources on something like the issue currently being proposed?!

Alright, I'm sorry I didn't add a poll. To be honest, I suspect the sweet sniff of puppet wank, but assuming not for the moment, here's, as best as I can tell, the forum vote:

FOR - 8
AGAINST - 35
ABSTAIN - 4

Do you really want to waste your time and resources on something like the issue currently being proposed?!
Hmmmm... you mean issues like decent education??? You're right, who needs schooling, they should stay in their place in the slums of society.

(dripping with sarcasm)
SqR

Hmmmm... you mean issues like decent education??? You're right, who needs schooling, they should stay in their place in the slums of society.

(dripping with sarcasm)
SqR

Funny guy. Maybe you could explain to us quite why IT education = 'decent education'? Because the proposal authors haven't bothered to.

It disturbs many in Krioval that this resolution is seriously being considered for implementation. As several of my esteemed colleagues have indicated, many countries want for food, running water, housing, and electricity. While it is admirable for the many societies of the world to be able to move forward technologically, it would be incredibly difficult to convince one's population of the necessity of modern computing when basic resources are deficient.

The government of Krioval finds that resolutions like this one detract from the overall mission of the United Nations to alleviate poverty, promote trade, and to encourage peace among its member states. This resolution threatens to trivialize the grand mandate of this august body by delving once more into short-sighted "feel good" legislation. I cannot bring dishonor upon myself, my family, and my Emperor by handing books on computing to people dying from disease and starvation. I would hope that those assembled here today are at least so honorable, or I fear for the continued existence of intelligent life.

~ 高原由 (Yoshi Takahara)

I could create another committe that could grant extensions for any UN nations that want them, just like I did with the Fossil Fuel Reduction Act. That would handle the complaints. Your nation trying to build/rebuild? Get an extension to help you build/rebuild your nation, putting aside IT education, for now, at least. When your nation is ready, then it can contiune with the resolution.

There's no point. This is entirely voluntary.

After much thought the Federation of Gravemalkin has decided to vote against.

The whole idea behind this proposal is good, but with out any teeth there is no point. MemberNations are free to implement the same ideals now, this proporsal does nothing.

I don't see this as having any damaging affects, as many are quick to claim. It's entirely up to the Nation to implement. But it also is fairly useless because it does no real good either.

If this proposal had a color, it would be gray, the kind of gray that people get bored of, and just want to be over with.

We're opposed, as we're not really a fan of useless legislation.

Now, see, despite the partial collapse of the UN's thin illusion of civility, resolutions like this are the reason that nobody in Greater Boblandia watches C-SPAN UN anymore. I personally remember when viewers would tune in every night to watch the debate on such great works as "Resolution #24-Fight Brigands off th' Coast a Madagsc'r" and "Resolution #71-Prevent the Nazis from capturing the Ark." I might be remebering them a bit different, but they were great, I'll tell ya...

:sniper: The UN thinks in it's deluded little world small countries are willing to be forced into debt just to buy computers to teach children, which will probably not have the qualifications required for the jobs in our small countries, since they do not have any IT related jobs:confused:
Vote against this act and let us grow without control from the Corporate headed UN:mad:

C'mon, people, play nice! Fair enough debating the proposal, but what proposal some of us are debating, I'm at a loss to tell. The actual, real, honest-to-goodness proposal doesn't force anyone to do anything.

It's a frame-of-mind proposal, a testing-the-waters proposal. Today we get the UN to agree, in a nice, feelgoody way, that it would be a lovely state of affairs if all kids could get basic IT skills. Mull that over, let it stew or percolate or whatever process best describes your assimilation of new ideas, and then -- Whammo! -- way down the track the authors hit us with the detailed legislation that will achieve their laudable ends.

The government of Lloegeyr applauds the authors for breaking the idea down, hopes they will continue feeding it to us in bite-sized chunks and urges our colleagues to eat up big.

Now, granted I am new to this, but this does not appear to be binding in any way. What harm is there in voting for it, and saying, yea IT education is nice, and our children should have it?


Yes, it's a nice idea, however it's the matter of the United Nations forcing the law of HAVING to spend money on ICT down every Un nation's throats, it's simply not fair.

I agree it's an importatnt issue, but the laws should be enforced steadily.

President James Smith
President of The Free Land of St James Smith

The people of Ustria are strongly opposed to this insane act, yet it seems as though it is going to come to pass based on the current number of nations accepting it. I cannot see any logic in this what so ever! In the wealthy nations, most children have a home computer and are well aware of how to use it. And in the poor nations, the people do not want computers, not nearly as much as they would like food or even clean water. To force the government to provide computers for people instead of spending this money on feeding their people is absolutly absurd! On behalf of Ustria and The Senate, I urge you all to oppose this act! A computer is not a basic need!

Consul Brad, of The Republic of Ustria

The nation of Cuation sees no real need for this and would rather leave it up to the nations. We voted no

As we have mentionned the non profit-organisation low-powered open-source "100$ laptop" in this thread, here is some recent news about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4445060.stm

The Dominion of Dave The Majestic is strongly opposed to this resolution.

It is not for the UN to force children to learn subjects they may not wish to do. It is for the individual nation to decide what is best for its children. Nations lacking in qualified IT nerds may wish to teach its children IT while others may find it more appropriate to encouraged more physical activity to reduce levels of child obesity.

PE and Games lessons are compulsory in the Dominion, as childrens health are considered to be of vital importance, far more than their ability to use a computer.

:headbang: Why r people voting for this. Some countries, Freshmore included, dont need to waste money on this. Our abundance of factories have no education qualifications and require no training. This would be a waste of UN's time and resources

Even if this is passed, i will opposed until my dying breath.

This is yet another proposal that does nothing but encourage. The people of Nnyobrugium are against laws that exist solely for the sake of having laws - we cannot, in good conscience, vote for this proposal.

The dictatorship of venage says: fuck knowledge!

C'mon, people, play nice! Fair enough debating the proposal, but what proposal some of us are debating, I'm at a loss to tell. The actual, real, honest-to-goodness proposal doesn't force anyone to do anything.

It's a frame-of-mind proposal, a testing-the-waters proposal. Today we get the UN to agree, in a nice, feelgoody way, that it would be a lovely state of affairs if all kids could get basic IT skills. Mull that over, let it stew or percolate or whatever process best describes your assimilation of new ideas, and then -- Whammo! -- way down the track the authors hit us with the detailed legislation that will achieve their laudable ends.

The government of Lloegeyr applauds the authors for breaking the idea down, hopes they will continue feeding it to us in bite-sized chunks and urges our colleagues to eat up big.

Then this resolution is beyond valueless, as it will invariably cause an increase in national tax rates of economically advanced member nations in order to finance an increase in bureaucracy. This money, however, will then only be used to "encourage" action? Krioval firmly believes that a nation wishing to change the methods by which business or education is conducted in UN member states should make a resolution with binding force. If the desire is to merely encourage voluntary action, that should not be inscribed into yet another fluffy resolution.

The dictatorship of venage says: f*** knowledge!

The ambassador from Krioval finds your statements to be deleterious to the overall tone and procession of the debate. I hope that there is a substantial argument behind the vulgarity.

高原由
Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

:headbang: why this sounds all cozy and nice, :fluffle: It actually is pointless without intermediary technology, and education...

what is a computer to a child who cannot read and write?
it's almost the equivalent of tossing a calculator to a neanderthal.

this only helps in a fraction of nations, and only then as a liesurely activity..how does this benefit the overall welfare of the nation?

upper technology is useless without the intermediary education and technology that help put it in place in the nations that do have it.

It just creates a new desire for a leisure activity, with no means of understanding how or why it got there, nor how it can be implemented to develop successful economies, societies or people.

the most destitue of nations, that really need help with their children will not benefit as a result of this resolution.

IT will drain economies of poor countries, forcing them to take out loans, forcing them to pay by increasing taxes, forcing people to get better paying jobs, forcing factories to try to raise conditions, forcing some people out of jobs, forcing the country to stop this act.

"Then this resolution is beyond valueless, as it will invariably cause an increase in national tax rates of economically advanced member nations in order to finance an increase in bureaucracy. "

I fail to see how this act would raise taxes. There are no provisions included to do so. This act seems to be a mere coslidation of a verbal agreement, and i can see no downside to voting for it.

OOC:

Every resolution has an impact that is derived solely from the type of resolution it is, and its strength. Thus, when a resolution is passed, it alters the stats of every UN member. Social Justice tends to lower economic power in favor of social welfare. However, I tend to argue (IC) that resolutions that merely suggest things will cause an economic hit while not doing anything of importance. This is due to the stat-altering nature of resolutions (hard coded in the game) combined with what I consider to be toothless text contained within. I hope this helps.

/OOC

The dictatorship of venage says: fuck knowledge!

My dear fellow, I used to be just as crotchety as that in the mornings, but I've found that a little extra roughage in the diet can work wonders! Do try it!

Right, back to the proposal: I must say, I think some of you are being the tiniest bit naughty about this. You keep painting these dreadfully gloomy pictures of your bright and shining economies being sucked down into the Black Hole of Doom by this proposal, when you know very well that it won't happen.

Now, I could do the same thing. I could put on a hurt-puppy face and accuse you all of being technological elitists, selfishly refusing to share with those less fortunate. I could point to the way you sit there positively dripping with wealth and power, like a pit-bull in a velvet collar, growling over your food-bowl so the nameless, faceless millions can't even lick it when you've finished. But I'm not going to do that.

I'm not going to because there's no need. The proposal doesn't make you do anything. What it does do is ask you to think about it. I mean, is that so hard? Think about all children everywhere having equal access to an education. Yes, of course they have to be fed and clothed and watered and tended first; the proposal acknowledges that. But it also says, look, they're not just bodies, they're minds, too, and we can help them. Let's all just have a think about how.

If we can, we should. That's all it says. Is that so difficult? It doesn't say do it right now, it doesn't say sacrifice your own children for somebody else's, it just says let's do what we can, as soon as we can.

Which my government intends to do.

My able colleague from Lloegeyr makes a compelling point, if only it were not entirely and completely off base. Krioval does not consider it worth diminishing our economy without some tangible evidence of benefit to the international community. In our way, we do not wish to see the United Nations sully its hands by becoming an agent of the forcible redistribution of wealth under the guise of improving the condition of the silent masses who lack basic resources. To this end, Krioval must oppose this resolution. The sole effect of this resolution is to convert capital produced from honest labor into funding for yet another bureaucracy.

I could put on a hurt-puppy face and accuse you all of being technological elitists, selfishly refusing to share with those less fortunate. I could point to the way you sit there positively dripping with wealth and power, like a pit-bull in a velvet collar, growling over your food-bowl so the nameless, faceless millions can't even lick it when you've finished. But I'm not going to do that.

Ah, but you already have done that, haven't you? What I mean to say is that if I were to claim that I was not to call the representative from Lloegeyr a "lapdog to the most horrifying and violent purveyors of the communist dystopia" while using those words, I would likely be implying that said representative truly is a lapdog to the most horrifying and violent purveyors of the communist dystopia. If I were to go further, and indicate that I would never say that all those who are promoting this resolution were actually "devoid of the most essential forms of intellect and literacy, and more, were actively seeking to hijack the United Nations to promote their own self-serving agenda", there might just be a few individuals who may begin to find, for whatever reason, that nations arguing for this resolution are, in fact, unintelligent, illiterate, and selfish. Krioval would be aghast that any might think such a thing.

The proposal doesn't make you do anything. What it does do is ask you to think about it.

Neither Krioval nor myself require a United Nations resolution to think about an issue. Is there an essential aspect of the Lloegeyr political system that requires United Nations mandates in order to consider issues of governance?

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

:YOU FOOLS! IT'LL RUIN US ALL! Why share technology when those evil poor country could use it against us? :sniper: <----Just Like That
Of course, there is the other option of this *Their Leader----->:) :mp5: <----Me* Anyways, consider this random from the argument. It's just something that's there, never coexisting with your views of the greater good *aka. No such thing as greater good, you're just killing yourself*. Yeah...Oh and also, alcohol should be illegalized but crack should be legalized. Think about it. When one is driving in a city with flashing lights, the guy on alcohol will most likely kill another. But the guy on crack will stay at an intersection because he sees the world clearer, too clear. The street lights will be magnified into laser beams. Therefore, he will think aliens are taking over the world and kill himself and therefore causing no other bodily harm towards others. But, this has nothing to do about the whole UN thing, I voted against it just so you know. But refer to the sentence "consider this random from the argument". Ty and burn in hell.

I am abstaining on this issue. it's nice, but feel that infringes on national soverignty too much.

Plus given a chance, Love and esterel would turn the whole UN into their fluffie vision of everyone being the same. Moreover, IT skills are irrelevent in nations where basic food, water and medical supplies are not available. Forcing nations to spend on IT may be hugely inappropriate.
i agree with this because it help kids become smarter with todays technology and with my proposal it really puts things in perspective for me if kids are smarter and are taught better and so is everyone else gun control would then be least of my worries.

Now, granted I am new to this, but this does not appear to be binding in any way. What harm is there in voting for it, and saying, yea IT education is nice, and our children should have it?
I agree if you look at it from my point of view if also helps gun control if kids learn about information technology and become smarter to not use guns.

:YOU FOOLS! IT'LL RUIN US ALL! Why share technology when those evil poor country could use it against us? :sniper: <----Just Like That
Of course, there is the other option of this *Their Leader----->:) :mp5: <----Me* Anyways, consider this random from the argument. It's just something that's there, never coexisting with your views of the greater good *aka. No such thing as greater good, you're just killing yourself*. Yeah...Oh and also, alcohol should be illegalized but crack should be legalized. Think about it. When one is driving in a city with flashing lights, the guy on alcohol will most likely kill another. But the guy on crack will stay at an intersection because he sees the world clearer, too clear. The street lights will be magnified into laser beams. Therefore, he will think aliens are taking over the world and kill himself and therefore causing no other bodily harm towards others. But, this has nothing to do about the whole UN thing, I voted against it just so you know. But refer to the sentence "consider this random from the argument". Ty and burn in hell.OK SO IF HE BURNS IN HELL SO WILL YOU BECAUSE YOU LOOKING AT IT IN A DISGUSTING WAY SO OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK YOU MIGHT BE THE ONE ON CRACK BECAUSE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADULTS IT IS ABOUT CHILDREN AND IF WE CATCH IT AT THEIR YOUTH IT COULD BE CONTAINED SO STOP POPPIN AND DRINKIN AND THINK ABOUT SORRY IF I OFFENDED YOU BUT THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO LOOK AT IT.

OK SO IF HE BURNS IN HELL SO WILL YOU BECAUSE YOU LOOKING AT IT IN A DISGUSTING WAY SO OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK YOU MIGHT BE THE ONE ON CRACK BECAUSE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADULTS IT IS ABOUT CHILDREN AND IF WE CATCH IT AT THEIR YOUTH IT COULD BE CONTAINED SO STOP POPPIN AND DRINKIN AND THINK ABOUT SORRY IF I OFFENDED YOU BUT THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
YOU :) :sniper:

This is a waste of money for nations. It is more important that children can write and do maths. IT is not nesscary, there are far more essential things and this is a disraction from them.

"Then this resolution is beyond valueless, as it will invariably cause an increase in national tax rates of economically advanced member nations in order to finance an increase in bureaucracy. "

I fail to see how this act would raise taxes. There are no provisions included to do so. This act seems to be a mere coslidation of a verbal agreement, and i can see no downside to voting for it.



What he means is this. In order to afford these new programs there would be a need to higher spending in the education budget for each nation. In order to do this one would have to cut the budgets of other programs. Seeing as it is natural for other programs to complain for their funding back, taxes would need to be raised.

Or from another standpoint, if businesses file for federal aid, as I would forsee if any business was stupid enough to make these cheap computers in bulk at a set price that guarantees a loss, taxes would need to be raised to make up for the new hit to federal spending.

All in all this is a horrible economic proposal and would lead to several UN nations being forced into a recession or a troft in distant years. Ones that would take a while to get out of.

I'm not really sure, it does infringe on national sovereignty but the next generation will be glad because the PC will be even more important then. Furthermore being able to say.. use email will make the next generation of secreatary's, office workers and even high profile politicians more efficient. On balace I think that this resolution should be passed.

I think on balance that this resolution has got a point, although it infringes on national sovereignty don't all resolutions? Teaching the next generation of office workers, secreatarys and even high profile politicians to name a few, basic IT skills in a world where PC's will be even more important could be highly valuable.

Bazalonian UN Ambassador, Peter Rase.

In determining Bazalonia's stance on this issue, I have talked to representatives from the IT industry, teachers and principals from our schooling system as well as various parent organisations. We have come to the conclusion that the best education that a child can receive in regards to computing in general and IT specifically is something that cannot be achieved through a structured curricula at schools but is taught through 'playing around' with a computer in the home.

This way the children are exposed to the basics of computing from an early age and those children that excell at IT-related fields have a head start as well. As has previously been stated by a number of nations concerns over food, other more basic educational needs and financial costings of implementing such a system can be met by encouraging home computer usage instead of a formalised Information Technology curricula at school allowing for a reduced strain on the education system and allowing self-determination for the level of technology implemented by each individual family and so the nation as a whole.

With this implementation I can see problems with the issues being raised as it is merely encouraged by the governement leaving the decision up to the individual families themselves. With this in mind Bazalonia will vote for this proposal.

more information about "$100-laptop"

batteries can be recharged using the simple wind-up crank (on the pic)
it seems that "A minute’s winding should provide enough power for 30-40 minutes of use", that seems to me optimistic, but even if it's 10-20mn it's great

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8338

http://laptop.media.mit.edu/images/laptop-front.jpg

http://laptop.media.mit.edu/images/laptop-ebook.jpg

It's big...and green...oh my goddess, you've convinced me!

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/3999/crad45tu.png

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/3999/crad45tu.png



is this one ok?:p

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8338/dn8338-1_600.jpg


It's big...and green...oh my goddess, you've convinced me!


glad to have;)

The UN's purpose is to dictate international policy. This proposal holds no ground in the international community. Let's get crackin' on the repeal.

I must say, I think some of you are being the tiniest bit naughty about this. You keep painting these dreadfully gloomy pictures of your bright and shining economies being sucked down into the Black Hole of Doom by this proposal, when you know very well that it won't happen.

...

The proposal doesn't make you do anything. What it does do is ask you to think about it. I mean, is that so hard? Think about all children everywhere having equal access to an education. Yes, of course they have to be fed and clothed and watered and tended first; the proposal acknowledges that. But it also says, look, they're not just bodies, they're minds, too, and we can help them. Let's all just have a think about how.

If we can, we should. That's all it says. Is that so difficult? It doesn't say do it right now, it doesn't say sacrifice your own children for somebody else's, it just says let's do what we can, as soon as we can.

Which my government intends to do.


Our esteemed colleague of Lloegeyr rightly points out that we don't need to implement this proposal in our nations if we choose not to; we can just "think about all children everywhere having equal access to an education" if we feel that's all that is necessary. So why are we all overreacting to this?

The approach here so far seems to be "you don't have to implement it, so therefore let it pass", which is quite a surreal thought. I think it is extremely valuable to consider the consequences of this resolution from the perspective of a nation that decides they would implement this legislation. Is it really of value to that nation?

Having grown up in a cult where computers were considered evil, which I now consider offensive, it seems to me to be just as offensive to say to our children that they must take computer training courses from such a young age. It's pretty much equivalent to forced religion classes. As a parent, that should be an anathema to us. Access to computers is probably a good thing as they are exceedingly useful as education tools - but not as the object of the education system itself. So while most of the items in the resolution being suggested are 'nice', item #1 that "STRONGLY URGES all nations to secure that each child, aged at least 12, receive some information technology education adapted to the national technology level" is simply untenable in and of itself.

So while my esteemed colleague of Lloegeyr suggests that we "think about all children everywhere having equal access to an education", that is not what the proposal is suggesting.

Certainly, I would choose not to implement this in WildBerry, but that entirely misses the point. Any nation that chooses to implement this is affecting the civil rights of their citizens by predisposing what is appropriate to teach their children.

I strongly urge that this legislation be tossed aside in favour of a better, more thought out, proposal that at least pretends to understand the real priorities of our education system.

Thanks for your time!

i think that this is just another case of the UN trying to enforce its views onto other nations that dont have any way of stopping them because they are two small or dont have enough endorsements. i feel that the UN should be overthrown and another group of countries should be put into its place. these nations would be there to stop one country from interfering where they are not wanted! any ambassadors that feel the same way should join me in 'Liberation from UnitedNations"
btw i think that if a region nation has a history that does no include the usage of IT then they should not be forced/encoraged/pressured to do so!!!!
:sniper:

Hmm... I agree with the idea of the proposal, but like others, I question what computers will do for children who cannot read. I've also heard complaints from my region that this resolution does little to address funding for computers for poorer nations. That said, I vote for it- it's not perfect, but it's a start.

I am abstaining on this issue. it's nice, but feel that infringes on national soverignty too much.

Plus given a chance, Love and esterel would turn the whole UN into their fluffie vision of everyone being the same. Moreover, IT skills are irrelevent in nations where basic food, water and medical supplies are not available. Forcing nations to spend on IT may be hugely inappropriate.


Agreed. The Federation Council votes 10-2 that being forced to provide such education is destructive means to an otherwise worthwhile ends. Furter, forcing high economy nations to provide machines for other nations with little or no monetary gain is an affront to all nations.

Quite frankly we rate this as up there with the solar panels fiasco. You have all taken leave of you're collective sences.

If I wasn't an idiot and knew how to propose a resolution, it would look something like this:

REALISING
That love and esterel co-authors or authors almost every single UN resolution.

DECIDING
That most of these resolutions are stupid and affect nothing in the game whatsoever.

REALISING
NationStates is just a game.

DISBELIEVING
That I spent enought time (5 minutes) to read forum posts and come up with this stupid idea.

REALISING
That realizing is spelled with a 'z' unless you're European.

PROPOSING
That love and esterel be forced to develop some hobbies, as well as have the term 'douche' bestowed upon him. (Sniper smiley):sniper: :gundge: :headbang: :mp5:

Lol.

The Cuation goverment praises Love and Esteral for its hard work, helping others in their own propsals and coming up with some good ones of its own. It is a shame that a toothless but pretty good proposal is ending up with shamless insults of little value to anyone.

That was not me.

It's so thoughtful of everyone to call me your 'able', and even 'esteemed', colleague, though it's just what I should have expected ofl such able and estimable people as yourselves! I do hope you'll all be able to pop in at the little soiree we're having at my office tonight -- nothing serious, just a few nibbles and drinkies, but I'm sure we'll all have a jolly time.

Now, noses back to the grindstone, eh? Oh, but first, let me say how utterly grateful I am for the restraint of the learned gentleman from Krioval, because if he had said all he could have said it would have been absolutely devastating and I wouldn't have known where to look! Now, where were we? Ah, yes:

Is there an essential aspect of the Lloegeyr political system that requires United Nations mandates in order to consider issues of governance?


Ahh. I'm really pleased you asked that question, because it gives me a chance to explain how my government views the United Nations. You see, in the hustle and bustle of day-to-day governing, we tend to get all caught up in our own little concerns and forget the really important things.

Well, that's where the UN comes in. There's a poem I learnt when I was little -- can't remember the whole thing, but it goes on about 'the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World'. Actually, it goes on and on about it, but that's neither here nor there. Thing is -- look, I don't want to sound all goody-goody here, but the UN is like a conscience, d'y'see? Always shoving its oar in, and at dreadfully inconvenient times, too, usually, but always trying to make us do better.

And, look, well, I'm getting all embarrassed and preachy, which is not like me at all, as I hope you'll see when you front up at the soiree tonight, but, well, yes, we do need the UN to keep us on the good ol' strait and narrow, y'know, since it's got the big picture that we haven't, and I think that this proposal is showing us a bit of that big picture, and that's why we're supporting it.

Now, don't forget the drinkies, 8pm on the Thirty-Ninth Floor. See you there!

Ahh. I'm really pleased you asked that question, because it gives me a chance to explain how my government views the United Nations. You see, in the hustle and bustle of day-to-day governing, we tend to get all caught up in our own little concerns and forget the really important things.

How...unfortunate. I had honestly hoped that national governments engaged in international trade and diplomacy would have no need for an external conscience. But then, I forget that the influence of the Great Way of our Emperor is not universally felt, and that some require outside help in questions of morality. My apologies.

Well, that's where the UN comes in. There's a poem I learnt when I was little -- can't remember the whole thing, but it goes on about 'the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World'.

"Parliament of Man" seems to be a bit sexist. I must assume that the poem was written before the True Light dawned over civilization. It may also be worth remembering that not every society is based on Earth.

the UN is like a conscience, d'y'see? Always shoving its oar in, and at dreadfully inconvenient times, too, usually, but always trying to make us do better.

I suppose I must agree with this. If only action matched intent, things might actually improve. As it stands, Krioval is puzzled as to why suggesting giving computers to people is somehow going to alleviate poverty in a meaningful way. Instead, why not address these issues in a strong and binding manner. If the goal of the United Nations is to correct social injustices - a laudible goal at that - it should concern itself with resolutions that do something directly, rather than waiting for nations to do it themselves. As has been illustrated, those nations least likely to act should be given a directive to do so, not merely a "wouldn't it be nice..." statement that lets some nations assuage their consciences without having to inconvenience others.

That is hardly making people do better.

Now, don't forget the drinkies, 8pm on the Thirty-Ninth Floor. See you there!

"Drinkies"? That must be a colloquialism with which I am unfamiliar. My apologies.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

[George Pollack had never been seen without his Bluetooth Earset. The rumour said he was keeping it by night. It was false but the Minister of new-technologies of LAE had never denied it, it even seemed he was enjoying the rumour.

It was his 1st time at the UN General Assembly, and he was impressed, the Hall was huge. Unlike his fellow government members, George Pollack was not very self confident and he hesitated long before to ask to speak. Then he decided he should go on.]

Dear UN Ambassadors and Representatives,

Many of you have expressed the concern that the proposition at vote “do nothing” or “violate natsov”, I will not try to convince you on those matters, if you think so you are free to vote against.

I would like to emphasize that peaceful IT is becoming more and more ESSENTIAL to the world we are living in and the trend is that it will become even more essential.

ESSENTIAL in our every day life for communications, ESSENTIAL for employment skills, ESSENTIAL for knowledge and culture and, dear representatives, this is only the beginning.

About communications, human beings need communications, what we need is "telepathy", as we are not able to do it, we invent all kinds of communication tools: mail, telegram, phone, e-mail, mobile phone, chat, forum, weblog, instant messenger, digital pictures and video camera...these had and will not replace physical communication these add new communication to physical ones who are limited.

LAE policy is to encourage private initiative, and the clause -5- is just that. We think it can be useful to encourage, not mandates, encourages companies worldwide to divert some money from TV ads into humanitarian aids; and we think a good way to do it is to begin by encouraging them where they will feel it’s “sexy”; it’s start; if you prefer TV ads, it’s up to you.

Nowadays many people worldwide have time and/or money free, they want to do also something useful with those time and money, once again we want to encourages them, these people also will move when they will feel the project “sexy”, remember what happen after the last giant tsunami, here also it’s a start.

We decided to write this resolution as a message which encourages technologies sharing and don’t encroach others humanitarian efforts by clause -4-. We know there is so much to do in this world, but a great danger is to do nothing on others topics until the end of malnutrition in the world.

The Ambassador of Caradune, Pazu-Lenny Nero and I, don’t have the writing skills of Dan Yeoman, but even if it’s far from perfect, we did our best and are satisfied about it.

Thank You

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote AGAINST the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

The IT act seems like a waste of time and money
It's just a big mess like the UN
I think maybe we should concentrate on old UN resolutions and try to adopt them to modern life
Quadramos
Order of O

The IT Education Act passed by 9,457 votes in favour to 4,441 votes against. Congratulations to Caradune and Love and esterel.

The IT Education Act passed by 9,457 votes in favour to 4,441 votes against. Congratulations to Caradune and Love and esterel.

Thanks Moltan (or Nuck ;) )

LAE would like also to congrats Caradune and to thanks everyone who voted FOR or AGAINST, every delegate who approved it and also those who gave us good advice and critics on this forum or elsewhere when Caradune and i were drafting it, in particular Mikitivity, _Myopia_ and Powerhungry Chipmunks

Oh, congratuLAtions, my dears, well done!

I do hope you'll be so kind as to drop in at my little soiree -- I'm sure you'll be celebrating tonight, so only if you've got a minute free, of course -- and together we'll see if we can educate that nice Mr Takahara about 'drinkies'.

I've put aside a lovely little varietal from one of our more select wine-growing regions, just for you!

The IT Education Act passed by 9,457 votes in favour to 4,441 votes against.

So now we do nothing?

I am personaly voteing against this as it a lame idea. The way small business's are ran do not effect the world in any way therefore the NSUN shouldn't even be interfering which is exactly what what will happen if this goes through.:mp5:

So now we do nothing?

Yes. But now y'all can do nothing with COMPUTERS! Hooray!

:cool:

I am personaly voteing against this as it a lame idea. The way small business's are ran do not effect the world in any way therefore the NSUN shouldn't even be interfering which is exactly what what will happen if this goes through.:mp5:

I believe you're looking for this small business discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455212).

This thread you're in now is a talk about folks getting computers.

Congratulations all who voted for this resolution. I'm glad to see a long-term view of development triumph over quibbling short-termism.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I believe you're looking for this small business discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455212).

This thread you're in now is a talk about folks getting computers.

Oh well just shows the Mods need to get off their bums and put the right topic at the top. I voted for this even though it does me no good as IT is the leading business in my nation. :sniper: