NationStates Jolt Archive

It is becoming obvious that there is a desperate need for millions of people on earth to be relieved of their hunger and disease, by eradicating their poverty and the poverty of their nation, be it trade, aid and/or education.

Kotire submits that the United Nations passes a Resolution requiring all UN member nations to donate 0.007% of their Gross National Incom (GNI) to an organisation (the United Nations Distribution Organisation - UNDO) which will in turn ensure that these donations reach the people worst affected by poverty, hunger and disease. This is a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) which means that there are no politics involved in the distribution involved.
However, national governments are to aid the UNDO in ensuring that the peoples who need the aid actually get the benefits, so that their living conditions are vastly improved.

The nations of the world CAN afford to do this, and therefore change the world.

Yes it might cost us and our nations, but the benefit for humanity will far out weigh that cost.
Throughout history generations have been called upon to make sacrifices, and it may be so for us today, to eradicate World Poverty, but these generations are always remembered as great generations, people who were not afraid to make a stand and do the right thing, even if it costs.

Please support the proposal for this bill to go to wider UN vote. Its first reading vote closes today! We need your support. If this bill fails, Kotire will not give up and will amend it, and His Majesty's government invites your input and suggestions! and then resubmit new proposals.

GOD SAVE THE KING, AND THE POOR!!!

I dare say this would violate the UN Taxation Ban. Yes, you call it a "donation", but by the mere fact of being required it is no longer a donation and fits quite nicely under the term of 'taxes'.

As this UNDO is in fact a part of the United Nations, and would have to be viewed as such by the single fact of it being in existence due to UN legislation, it could not collect forced revenue, i.e. taxes, from the member nations of the UN. I suggest you don't attempt to renew this proposal, well-meaning as it may be.

~Lady Sara~

UN Taxation ban only stops the UN taxing a nations citizens directly. It has no effect on the UN taxing nation governments. The other taxation resolution protects a nations rights to set their own taxes within their own borders.

I don't think either of those two resolutions would stop the UN requiring nations to hand over a certain percentage of GNP, but any resolution that tries that would fall into the trap of how much that would really equate to ect. I've seen proposal try this in the past, and they are usually shot down by members who know economics, which is a subject I will freely admit to being clueless about.

Is that what it says? Well then I must withdraw my argument. I do dislike using the term 'donate' still, either way.

As for economics, I know just enough about the subject to be sure that I have absolutely no ability to draw any useful conclusions on the matter whatsoever. Hopefully someone will come along who does... (that's an excellent entrance cue for someone)

~Lady Sara~

FROM THE DESK OF GEORGE A. LOAK, SUPREME EMPEROR
The Dark Empire of Shazbotdom has gotten rid of poverty in our nation. Why should we help others do it? They should learn to do it themselves as we did ourself.

Is that what it says? Well then I must withdraw my argument. I do dislike using the term 'donate' still, either way.

As for economics, I know just enough about the subject to be sure that I have absolutely no ability to draw any useful conclusions on the matter whatsoever. Hopefully someone will come along who does... (that's an excellent entrance cue for someone)

~Lady Sara~

I agree with you about the use of the word 'donate' in this instance. A donation is supposed to be given freely, not required to be handed over. That does sound a lot more like a tax, or extortion.

If this did proposal did change tack and make the money a real donation, given freely by willing nations, it would perhaps find some support from me. As written however, it just smacks of redistribution of wealth. That isn't always a bad thing, if carefully regulated and controlled, but I'm sure to be in the minority thinking that way.

IC: Ryan N. Creezna, the current President of Havvy, will vote against this proposal unless it is changed. I shall mandate that the UN Ambassador votes against it, mainly for the fact, that giving away money won't solve the problem. All you would be doing is literally adding welfare to welfare free nations, like mine. Pensions are much more useful. During my term in office, I want to lower taxes on my people. This would be a huge step backwards.

It is becoming obvious that there is a desperate need for millions of people on earth to be relieved of their hunger and disease, by eradicating their poverty and the poverty of their nation, be it trade, aid and/or education.

The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia agrees. Ever since the Excruciatian Revolution the Policarmy has been working to eradicate poverty all over the world...by eradicating the poor...and the rich...and most of those inbetween. BPL understands the concerns of Kotire, and can guarantee the King/Queen of Kotire that the Policarmy and Excruciatian weapons factories never rest in their task of eradication.

BPL - DRE

I don't see how a UN organization can be an NGO, especially where nations are required to contribute to it.

This proposal gets the usual thumbs down from us: giving the poor pennies is no kind of answer, if they have holes in their pockets. It's better to help them stitch up the holes first. Encouragement of the economic development of poorer nations through investment, projects to stimulate employment, free movement of people, capital and goods: these are the ways to eliminate poverty. Setting up a UN hand-out just increases dependency and worsens the problem.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

If "what that guy said" is the sole substance of your post, then WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED TO POST AT ALL.

Yeah, what the Gruenberger dude said.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

This proposal gets the usual thumbs down from us: giving the poor pennies is no kind of answer, if they have holes in their pockets. It's better to help them stitch up the holes first. Encouragement of the economic development of poorer nations through investment, projects to stimulate employment, free movement of people, capital and goods: these are the ways to eliminate poverty. Setting up a UN hand-out just increases dependency and worsens the problem.We can't say that we agree with Gruenberg's POV (we seldom do, in anything), but we can't say that we support this idea, either. That sounds strange, coming from a communist country, but bear with us.

It is our belief that poverty is a national problem. Having said this, we hasten to add that we do not mean by this that it's a problem best left to individual nations to handle. Quite the contrary: this is one of the few cases where we are willing to take an activist position and interfere in the sovereign affairs of Member nations. It's just that we don't believe that a transfer of wealth from “rich” to “poor” countries is the answer to this problem.

Simply put, the fact that some are rich and some are poor - or more formally, the problem of income inequality - is entirely a consequence of domestic policy choices - period. Individual nations choose to maldistribute income; individual nations have the power to change this, and give their poorest citizens a better life. To the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property, the Social Justice question is whether we as a body are willing to compel them to do so and - if we are - what method might best be used to accomplish this goal.

But - in spite of what our individual national stats indicate - there are no intrinsically “rich” or “poor” nations, Every nation makes itself whatever it chooses to be, based on the choices that it makes in managing its own domestic affairs.

Community Property is one of the “poorest” nations in this body. Do you think we are “poor” because we lack the natural and human resources to prosper?

Think again.The People's Democratic Republic of Community Property is a massive, safe nation, remarkable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 3.224 billion love a good election, and the government gives them plenty of them. Universities tend to be full of students debating the merits of various civil and political rights, while businesses are tightly regulated and the wealthy viewed with suspicion.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent, socially-minded government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of the Environment, Social Welfare, and Education. The average income tax rate is 100%. The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising fourteen-year-old boys selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out.

Pharmacies close down as medicinal drugs are sold freely by the government, a vast monorail network carries people all over the country, euthanasia is legal, and the government helps teach children how to kill a man from six paces. Crime is totally unknown. Community Property's national animal is the New Socialist Man, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the hammer.

Community Property is ranked 5033rd in the region and 96,644th in the world for Largest Agricultural Sector. This description, like everyone else's, varies day to day; yesterday we were described as a “socially progressive” nation; the day before, as “environmentally stunning” (the appelation of which we are most proud). Whatever the day-to-day variation, the point is that we are the product of our own choices. Our lush forests and stunning environment are what they are because we value natural beauty over development. We have the same natural resources as everybody else; we just choose to leave them untouched in the name of maintaining our land in a pristine state. Likewise for education, civil rights, social equality, democracy, and all the rest: we choose to be what we are, and view with disdain those desolate industrial wastelands whose people earn more in a year that we earn in a lifetime and call us “poor”; are we really “poor” because we lack material things, or are they “poor” because they no longer hear birdsong in the morning or see the sun rise and set through all their industrial smudge while we live amidst unparalleled beauty, breathing clean air, drinking clean water, eating clean food, laughing and loving in harmony with one another, not locking our doors and not worried about what might happen to our children when we're not looking? In the end who's really “rich” and who's really “poor”?

It's a matter of perspective.

To that extent, we think it would be immoral to take wealth from other countries that rape their enviornments in order to have a little more material comfort; doing so will just make these so-called “rich” countries rape their environments harder, if such a thing is impossible. What we would consider would be measures to force other countries to treat their poor better, so that they suffer less relative to their fellow countrymen. But that would be a very different initiative than this one.

We are tired of people basing their positions in various debates on what various resolutions do to “rich” and “poor” countries. There are no “rich” and “poor” countries; there are only “rich” and “poor” people.

Simply put, the fact that some are rich and some are poor - or more formally, the problem of income inequality - is entirely a consequence of domestic policy choices - period.

I'm going to disagree here. The best laid plans of men often fall flat, and often the worst pieces of manure often get the strangest bits of luck. Pompei probably had a good economic model until the volcano blew up, or perhaps it was just that the tourist industry was so good that it could afford to be inefficient. Perhaps it might have had a major economic downturn in twenty years had the volcano not exploded. Some lands are a natural fountain of resources, and can afford to be not effiecient. Some lands are struck by a severe lack of resources and must be highly effiecient in order to just stay alive. Nation states are not all created equal. (OOC: Well perhaps they are but nah.)

Real Life™ nation states are not created equal; NationStates nation states, on the other hand, most assuredly are.

IOW, this is one of those differences between Real Life™ and NationStates: in Real Life™ there's a Third World; in NationStates there is nothing of the sort, save by choice

in NationStates there is nothing of the sort


http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal1/orly_indian.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net//target=display_region/region=third_world)?

http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal1/orly_indian.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/target=display_region/region=third_world)?Well, there wasn't when I wrote my last post in this thread. But that's irrelevant.

This is a classic example of NationStates not being Real Life™: in Real Life™ there are nations that have never really had a chance; whether their plight is due to overpopulation, a lack of resources, colonialism, or whatever, they can (usually) point to something other than their own policies to explain their condition.

But it's not that way here.

Every nation starts the same; every nation has the same opportunities; whether it prospers in the material sense or not is due to its own decisions, not someone else's actions.

In that sense, whatever you may want to name a region, the Real Life™ equivalent of a Third World does not effectively exist.

(Oh, and BTW, since nations can join and quit the Third World (http://www.nationstates.net/target=display_region/region=third_world) at will, my earlier statement is still true: if they're there, they're there by choice.)

OOC: That's a completely shit MetaGaming argument, though. So yetafuckinggain we have you trying to foist your - stupid - views of IC/OOC onto us all as Gospel. Well, no...

To suggest that people are essentially prohibited from RPing developing nations, simply because they could have clicked "Strongly Disagree" on the capitalism question, is wank, pure and simple.

OOC: That's a completely shit MetaGaming argument, though. So yetafuckinggain we have you trying to foist your - stupid - views of IC/OOC onto us all as Gospel. Well, no...

To suggest that people are essentially prohibited from RPing developing nations, simply because they could have clicked "Strongly Disagree" on the capitalism question, is wank, pure and simple.A tip you might want to consider: looser underwear will improve your attitude and the increases the flow of blood to your brain.

That said, your remarks only confirm what we've already said: if you're suffering material poverty, it's because you choose material poverty. Call it metagaming; call it anything you want; it is demonstrably one of the obvious differences between NationStates and Real Life™, and that's just all there is to it.

Or would you prefer that we insist that rich nations owe poor nations reparations for the damage done from colonialism? Nah, we didn't think you'd go for that.

And one more thing. You may hate us, but watch your tongue.

Or would you prefer that we insist that rich nations owe poor nations reparations for the damage done from colonialism? Nah, we didn't think you'd go for that.
Depends on the RP context, really, doesn't it? It should be up to the people controlling those nations to decide. If a nation has a colonial past, then I guess they might well want reparations: would make for quite an entertaining character for the UN forum, actually.

I see no reason why we have to obey your biblical pronouncements that OOC mechanics of the game have anything to do with IC roleplaying. If you want to limit yourself in that awkward and nonsensical fashion, feel free: just don't start laying down the law for what we all have to think.

And one more thing. You may hate us, but watch your tongue.
Hate's a strong word, sugar. I just find your excessively italicised ramblings™ fucking annoying.

Hate's a strong word, sugar. I just find your excessively italicised ramblings™ fucking annoying.

Sugar? Damn...now I'm getting the munchies...

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN