NationStates Jolt Archive

Esteemed delegates,
I have put this proposal for you in yet another effort to improve the rights of humans, and I hope that after reviewing this proposal you will find yourself so disposed as to lend your support and approve this proposal.

DP for the Mentally Disabled
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Mauribritania

Description: Recognizing that there are some people who lack the mental capabilities to fully understand the crime that they've committed and the corresponding consequences of that crime

Hereby
Defines someone who is mentally disabled as: a person who's mental capacity does not extend far enough to grasp that the actions that they have taken have consequences, and do not understand the full nature of their punishment.
(To clarify this definition, there was a true story of a mentally retarded person on death row who asked his lawyer if he could go to Burger King after his execution.)

Requires that no person who is mentally disabled be executed.

Also requires that in order to fall into the category of mentally disabled, a person must be found to be so in a court of law, by either a judge or jury (pursuant to the laws of the nation in question).

Demands that the person in question must undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to the trial.

This proposal can be found under the title: DP for the Mentally Disabled. I appreciate any time that you have taken in reviewing my proposal.
Yours,
Mauribritania
Burbujas

Esteemed delegates,
I have put this proposal for you in yet another effort to improve the rights of humans, and I hope that after reviewing this proposal you will find yourself so disposed as to lend your support and approve this proposal.

DP for the Mentally Disabled
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Mauribritania

Description: Recognizing that there are some people who lack the mental capabilities to fully understand the crime that they've committed and the corresponding consequences of that crime

Hereby
Defines someone who is mentally disabled as: a person who's mental capacity does not extend far enough to grasp that the actions that they have taken have consequences, and do not understand the full nature of their punishment.
(To clarify this definition, there was a true story of a mentally retarded person on death row who asked his lawyer if he could go to Burger King after his execution.)

Requires that no person who is mentally disabled be executed.

Also requires that in order to fall into the category of mentally disabled, a person must be found to be so in a court of law, by either a judge or jury (pursuant to the laws of the nation in question).

Demands that the person in question must undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to the trial.

This proposal can be found under the title: DP for the Mentally Disabled. I appreciate any time that you have taken in reviewing my proposal.
Yours,
Mauribritania
Burbujas

Looks good, but I'd tighten up the wording and resubmit after the one in the docket dies.


Recognizing that there are some people who lack the mental capabilities to fully understand the crime that they have committed and the corresponding consequences of that crime;

Hereby Defines a person who is mentally disabled as a person who lacks mental faculties to understand that the actions that they have taken have consequences and do not understand the full nature of their punishment;

Mandates that the person in question must undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to the trial to determine mental disability and be approved in a court of law;

Requires that no person who is lawfully considered mentally disabled be executed.

P.S.: Welcome to the forums, Mauribritania.

Hope my suggestions help.

I cun see-a tvu prublems veet thees. Furst ooffff I essoome-a thet
(To clarify this definition, there was a true story of a mentally retarded person on death row who asked his lawyer if he could go to Burger King after his execution.)
reffers tu sumetheeng thet heppened in thet mytheecel plece-a celled reel leeffe-a. Seence-a RL refferences in prupusels is illegel, yuoor idea is deed elreedy. Secundly, yuoor vhule-a idea roons cuntredeectury tu zee "Feur Sentenceeng Ect" vheech meuns thet yuoor idea is cumpletely und utterly deed oon erreefel. Bork Bork Bork!

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef

Keep your filthy hands out of our criminal law.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We would like to welcome Mauribritania to the UN as well. While the execution of the mentally disabled is an act we find repugnant as a nation and government, we share the concerns expressed by the Flibbleite....delegate that this proposal would contradict the Fair Sentencing Act. We'd encourage nations not to execute the mentally disabled, however.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I'm not so sure. While I acknowledge this is going to step into the realms of the annoyingly hyperlegal, Fair Sentencing Act can't override Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=43), which includes 'a ban on physical abuse' of the mentally-ill. Presumably, if this proposal argued that capital punishment constituted physical abuse, it would be legal.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

We must repeal and rewrite Fair Sentencing Act but I think that there is already a proposal for this.

We must repeal and rewrite Fair Sentencing Act but I think that there is already a proposal for this.

No, we musn't.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Apart from seconding the good sheik's expressed distaste for UN meddling in our internal criminal systems, I might suggest changing the title. Actually, no. I'll do you the favour and tell you that the only chance in hell of this ever getting anywhere near quorum, let alone vote, is if you start by changing the title. I saw the title, and got revved up to scream on about mandatory executions of the mentally disabled. I read the proposal to realize that it was exactly the opposite of what I had assumed from the title. You can pretty well guarantee that there are many who won't read past a title that they don't like, and won't approve it, or vote for it.

Other than that, alter your definition so that it only includes those who are incapable of grasping consequences and punishment. That their capacity doesn't currently grasp them doesn't cut it for me. Ignorance of the law doesn't fly as a defence in many of the nations I am familiar with.

I read the proposal to realize that it was exactly the opposite of what I had assumed from the title. You can pretty well guarantee that there are many who won't read past a title that they don't like, and won't approve it, or vote for it.
You can't really accommodate such people. If people aren't going to read or understand the proposal, then that's their own damn fault. People mentioned this when I submitted Extraordinary Rendition, and it passed without comment that the title was misleading. Do we really have to pander to the lowest of the low every time?

(Though, ironically, the title does need changing anyway...it's over 30 characters. I suppose if, as the OP suggests, 'DP' will be used, it'll fit, but I'd advise against using that abbreviation, as that really is misleading.)

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Do we really have to pander to the lowest of the low every time?


While I understand the desire to not pander, I'm merely suggesting avoiding the kneejerk reactions. Extraordinary Rendition probably had more of a "???" effect on people that it had "zomgwtfbbqdeywants2killtehpurtards!!!one!21"

OOC: With a large portion of even adults not knowing what "Extraordinary Rendition" means, let alone kids, for them to vote for or against on it based solely upon first appearances, Extraordinary Rendition would only receive opposing votes because they're too lazy to read the text. As Kiv said, there's going to be a lot of people who will look at the title and based upon pure knee-jerk reactions, will go "the f***ing a**hole wants to kill retarded people". Hell, two years ago, that would've been me.

Hell, it wouldn't amaze me if a mod screwed it up because they're so busy pruning the proposal queue that they didn't have time to read deep into the matter. Do I think they will? If it was just Fris and Hack, no. But someone who isn't paying attention to the boards and is just blazing through tasks might not pause and check before hitting the delete button.

Speaking of legalities, wasn't there a rule of the title matching the text?

Whatever. I'm just surprised to find that dumbing down and wild, unsubstantiated conjecture are the means we think are likely to raise standards in the UN.

Well, in this case, we're not looking at dumbing down. We're looking at making the title more appropriate to purpose. "Execution of the Mentally Disabled" sounds like it should be a mandate to kill the metally challenged.

We support the right of states to treat all of its citizens equally by executing the mentally disabled.

Whatever. I'm just surprised to find that dumbing down and wild, unsubstantiated conjecture are the means we think are likely to raise standards in the UN.

Raising the Standards of the UN and making the title of a proposal more....intuitive are far from contradictory positions. In fact, I would argue that they are mutually desired concepts.

On a different note, dumbing down the UN and increasing the standard of her proposals are far from mutually exclusive positions

Further, we have seen incidents where people have failed to understand the language correctly and proposals have failed because the UN body doesn't get it. Reformentia's old Sapient Rights proposal, which had one of the widest failure margins, failed for this very reason. Indeed, in the aftermath, quite a few representatives said that all that was needed to pass Sapient Rights was to use the much worse but much better known and globally understood term of "Sentient" instead of Sapient. Indeed, it was a veteran member who indicated, back when Sapient was originally chosen as the preference over Sentient, that there could be a tad of confusion on the matter that could very well result in the failing of Sapient Rights. (I'm thinking it might've been the representative of Texan Hotrodders)

Not always are the calls for dumbing down proposals unfounded, nor are all our calls for change a true claim by the veteran body based entirely upon unfounded conjecture.

We support the right of states to treat all of its citizens equally by executing the mentally disabled.

OOC: Run along, troll. Nice nation name, by the way. :rolleyes:

Esteemed delegates,
I have put this proposal for you in yet another effort to improve the rights of humans, and I hope that after reviewing this proposal you will find yourself so disposed as to lend your support and approve this proposal.

DP for the Mentally Disabled
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Mauribritania

Description: Recognizing that there are some people who lack the mental capabilities to fully understand the crime that they've committed and the corresponding consequences of that crime

Hereby
Defines someone who is mentally disabled as: a person who's mental capacity does not extend far enough to grasp that the actions that they have taken have consequences, and do not understand the full nature of their punishment.
(To clarify this definition, there was a true story of a mentally retarded person on death row who asked his lawyer if he could go to Burger King after his execution.)

Requires that no person who is mentally disabled be executed.

Also requires that in order to fall into the category of mentally disabled, a person must be found to be so in a court of law, by either a judge or jury (pursuant to the laws of the nation in question).

Demands that the person in question must undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to the trial.

This proposal can be found under the title: DP for the Mentally Disabled. I appreciate any time that you have taken in reviewing my proposal.
Yours,
Mauribritania
Burbujas
Mentally retarded people should not be treated any differently from other people. If they commit a crime, they are to pay the repercussions, whether or not they knew that which they did to be a crime. If the penalty is to be executed, they are to be executed.

In addition, a person should not be officially labeled as mentally retarded by a court or a judge, but by a doctor, whether the nation decides this doctor should have specific credentials to certify his judgment or not.


I'm not so sure. While I acknowledge this is going to step into the realms of the annoyingly hyperlegal, Fair Sentencing Act can't override Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill, which includes 'a ban on physical abuse' of the mentally-ill. Presumably, if this proposal argued that capital punishment constituted physical abuse, it would be legal.
It is not abuse if it is legal, in a simplified term (I believe). If applied to a mentally normal person, is it abuse to sentence that person to capital punishment? I think not..

Mentally retarded people should not be treated any differently from other people. If they commit a crime, they are to pay the repercussions, whether or not they knew that which they did to be a crime. If the penalty is to be executed, they are to be executed.

If you truly feel that people with mental deficiencies, to the point of being unable to recognize right from wrong, should be executed, then you need to stop placing mentally deficient people in charge of your legal system and government.

In addition, a person should not be officially labeled as mentally retarded by a court or a judge, but by a doctor, whether with specific credentials to certify his judgment or not.

I think most nations would, in fact, allow medical personnel to make that determination, which would then be used in sentencing. But, by your standard, even if a doctor did make that determination, it wouldn't matter...off with their head! Your legal system is apparently slightly less enlightened than that of a tribunal run by cavemen.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

If you truly feel that people with mental deficiencies, to the point of being unable to recognize right from wrong, should be executed, then you need to stop placing mentally deficient people in charge of your legal system and government.

How mature of you.

I think most nations would, in fact, allow medical personnel to make that determination, which would then be used in sentencing.
Yes, I was merely responding to one that said a court/judge should declare a person mentally deficient or not.
But, by your standard, even if a doctor did make that determination, it wouldn't matter...off with their head! Your legal system is apparently slightly less enlightened than that of a tribunal run by cavemen.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador
Those who commit about to commit a crime must learn or pay the repercussions. Exceptions should not be extended to any parties. Those who do not learn will then be removed. What youre saying is: a person who does not know what he or she is doing should not be executed for setting off a bomb or shooting several people. Shall we release this person back into the public and allow him or her to potentially commit more of these crimes? Is this not the point of a prolonged jail term or an execution? Furthermore, let me repeat: "What youre saying is: a person who does not know what he or she is doing should not be executed for setting off a bomb or shooting several people." A drunk is also a person who does not what he or she is doing. Would you protect this man as well? You say it is not the person's fault if he/she is mentally retarded? Is it this man's fault that he is addicted to alcohol? What constitutes fault? Is it someone's fault if as a child, he attempted a cartwheel and bumped his head sufficiently to cause him to become mentally retarded? What if (lol) the mother dropped him as a baby and made him mentally retarded? Shall we then execute the mother, since she is at fault? Shall we then obtain the complete history of every mentally retarded man before a court is even allowed to form?

Anyone who commits a crime must suffer the repercussions.

Those who commit about to commit a crime must learn or pay the repercussions. Exceptions should not be extended to any parties. Those who do not learn will then be removed.

It must be nice to be able to view the world in such a simplistic manner. However, we believe that the legal system shouldn't be focused on "removing people" - it should be focused on making society better and protecting people, and maybe even giving them a chance to turn away from antisocial behavior and becoming productive citizens. We have the death penalty, but almost never use it - and we'd never use it on someone who has extenuating circumstances such as mental deficiency or disorder.

What youre saying is: a person who does not know what he or she is doing should not be executed for setting off a bomb or shooting several people. Shall we release this person back into the public and allow him or her to potentially commit more of these crimes? Is this not the point of a prolonged jail term or an execution?

You are deliberately misstating my position. What I am saying is very simple: it is morally wrong to execute a mentally disabled person. I never said they should not be punished for their crime. You also seem to think rehabilitation is a concept not worth pursuing; we do not.

Furthermore, let me repeat: "What youre saying is: a person who does not know what he or she is doing should not be executed for setting off a bomb or shooting several people." A drunk is also a person who does not what he or she is doing. Would you protect this man as well? You say it is not the person's fault if he/she is mentally retarded? Is it this man's fault that he is addicted to alcohol? What constitutes fault? Is it someone's fault if as a child, he attempted a cartwheel and bumped his head sufficiently to cause him to become mentally retarded? What if (lol) the mother dropped him as a baby and made him mentally retarded? Shall we then execute the mother, since she is at fault?

You really didn't need to repeat the same inane analogies over again. The answer is the same: punishment is desirable, rehabilitation even more so, but executing a mentally disabled individual is reprehensible and barbaric. Incidentally, we also find it illuminating that you find the idea of someone becoming mentally disabled due to an accident caused by their mother to be an amusing one.

Anyone who commits a crime must suffer the repercussions.

And again, I never said otherwise. I merely stated the position of my government on the subject of executing mentally disabled persons; I never said not to punish them. Is the ability to comprehend statements of others emphasized much in your national school system?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

It must be nice to be able to view the world in such a simplistic manner. However, we believe that the legal system shouldn't be focused on "removing people" - it should be focused on making society better and protecting people, and maybe even giving them a chance to turn away from antisocial behavior and becoming productive citizens.
Removing negatives from society will increase its positive value. In addition, the world is overpopulated what with every other nation running around with 1-godknowswhat billion(s) of people. In fact, governments are too tight on the use of the death penalty. In addition, there is only a chance (as in not surefire) that the person will, as you say, turn away from antisocial behavior and become productive citizens. Why waste the effort when (I assume) your nation is not completely crashing? A simple removal will do better.


You are deliberately misstating my position. What I am saying is very simple: it is morally wrong to execute a mentally disabled person. I never said they should not be punished for their crime.
And what *I* said is that if the punishment for the crime is to be executed, they must be. Why is it moral to punish a mentally disabled person in the form of a fine or a prison term, but not in the form of capital punishment (should the situation so require it)? You apply some laws but ignore others?


You really didn't need to repeat the same inane analogies over again. The answer is the same: punishment is desirable, rehabilitation even more so, but executing a mentally disabled individual is reprehensible and barbaric.
It is reprehensible and barbaric to refuse to create a law then refuse to (fully) enforce it.


Incidentally, we also find it illuminating that you find the idea of someone becoming mentally disabled due to an accident caused by their mother to be an amusing one.
I find it amusing because in the real world, it is quite a common phrase, and not used in a serious tone of voice as it is here.


Anyone who commits a crime must suffer the repercussions.
And again, I never said otherwise. I merely stated the position of my government on the subject of executing mentally disabled persons; I never said not to punish them.
I said "the" repercussions. Not "a repercussion that may be lowered according to your mental condition."

Is the ability to comprehend statements of others emphasized much in your national school system?
Does your nation have a policy that bans parents from teaching their children politeness?

I agree with Ambassador Agaranth and others that executing a person unable to comprehend the crime or the punishment is barbaric. I feel that executing anyone is barbaric. But that's not at issue here. This is a draft, so there are two immediate questions: Is it legal, and Is it clear?

I'm not expert enough to comment on the first. On the second, I think Akimonad has given you a good start:

Recognizing that there are some people who lack the mental capabilities to fully understand the crime that they have committed and the corresponding consequences of that crime;

Though Kivisto suggests you rephrase it to make clear that it deals with "those who are incapable of grasping consequences and punishment".

That, I guess, would give you

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that some people are incapable of fully understanding the crime they have committed and the corresponding consequences of that crime;

I'd change "people" to "perpetrators" or "criminals", since, from your introduction, we're talking about people who have been tried and found guilty. I'd also drop the word "corresponding"; I can't see that you need to qualify "consequences" in any way.

Either way, it loses the RW reference about the hamburger guy.

Next step: defining who is mentally disabled. You've got the requirement that the person be psychiatrically examined and the requirement that a court recognise the person as mentally disabled. It's not either/or. You can have them both.

However, psychiatry is not an exact science. What one psychiatrist regards as an incurable or innate condition may be, to another, a treatable psychosis. I think you should ask for a second opinion. You could ask for one to be a court-appointed psychiatrist, the other(s) to be nominated by the appropriate professional body. But that much detail can be left to the individual nations, if you try something like this:

DECLARES that such criminals shall be defined as mentally disabled if:

(a) a psychiatric examination finds them to be so, and
(b) the finding is confirmed by independent qualified examination(s), and
(c) a court ratifies the finding;

REQUIRES that no person who is thus found to be mentally disabled be executed.

This is just for starters. You may, for example, want some wording that specifies whether the psychiatric examination shall take place before or after the trial and before or after the sentencing.

It seems to me you're assuming it will be after the trial, because you refer to "their crime" -- that is, they've been found to have committed a crime.

However, I'd go for the examination to be done before the actual sentence is delivered, as the results would be expected to influence the sentence.

But putting this in may cause difficulties if nations don't use the judge-and-jury system, so the broader the wording, the better.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

But putting this in may cause difficulties if nations don't use the judge-and-jury system, so the broader the wording, the better.
It was my understanding that the jury system is required of UN members under Definition of Free Trial. Though I may be wrong there, I've only made a cursory glance over the resolution list.

~ Sebastian Ennuk

You're entirely right, Sebastian mon vieux, and I must say, I'm glad to learn that at least one of the Ennuks reads something more than bank statements. My intern, whom I sent scurrying off to check, tells me the relevant clause says

6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.

I was actually muddling myself up with vague thoughts of jurisdictions where the assumption is that the defendant has to prove his innocence, rather than the State proving his guilt. But then, they'd have to have juries too, under that resolution, so there goes that whole part of my argument. In fact, they couldn't exist at all, because that same law requires the innocent-till-proven-guilty assumption.

Just as well I was advising Mauribritania not to be specific. But then, I did warn you that I'm not an expert, didn't I? Not in law,anyway ...

*flutters eyelashes at Emen Un delegate*

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

The Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius has provided intriguing arguments against this proposal. It appears that Dagnus Reardinius doesn't believe in extenuating circumstances, nor does he believe in varying the punishment to suit the specific situation of the crime committed. We wonder if the representative from Dagnus Reardinius would likewise be opposed to UNR #94: Right to Self Protection which suggested to our members that they be lenient if not acquit those who have committed murder as an act of self-defense. We wonder if the representative from Dagnus Reardinius would have their own spies arrested for espionage. We wonder if the representative from Dagnus Reardinius would issue a warning instead of a ticket to a man who just had his brake lights smashed and is on his way to the shop, whether they'd let a man go because he left the shopping center with goods he hadn't paid for but fully intended (and had the means to) pay for said items.

We feel that the Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius has, thus far, merely proved that he is nothing more than a fool or that his own legal system is ludicrous, looking to punish the crime rather than look at why the crime happened and, perhaps, look at alternate means to give such a punishment.

It is our belief, like that of the Represenative from Altanar, that mentally challenged people should be given a sentence leaning towards the lower end of the ranged potential sentences and with greater emphasis on rehabilitation rather than jail time. Indeed, we feel that the punishment, instead of being designed for the crime, should be designed to best suit what it would take to teach the lesson that needs to be taught and improve the citizen that committed the crime. Execution does not teach an individual anything, merely punishes for reasons beyond us. The only logical explanation we have ever been given is execution should be used to deter future offenders - but how can a mentally handicapped person be deterred by someone else's death if he cannot understand what death is?

Yet for some reason, this does not seem to be good enough for the Ambassador from Dagnus Reardinius. For some reason, the Ambassador believes that we should punish for the sake of punishing these people. Tell me, Mr Ambassador, are you truly deluded and sadistic enough to punish without purpose, or is there actually a theory behind your madness? Mr Ambassador, for what reason does your legal system hand out any punishment?

In the interest of stability we will gladly send over representatives from the Department of Mental Hygiene to identify those who are mentally unbalanced in your government, starting with the people who created this bill. We will identify those with megalomania, paranoia, schizophrenia, xenophobia, and other mental imbalances and purge them from office. We are solely interested in government officers and office holders in this case.

Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative

Would the representative of Commonatalitarianism care to enlighten this body as to why he opposes this proposal. I'm not sure if he's noticed, but there seems to be a rather large support for this proposal so firing insults at the proposer does little but throw insults and troll.

What are you, a closet masochist? Don't ask him to speak more, gods!

In any case, the proposer hasn't commented since first introducing the draft; maybe we should wait to see if they're going to do so before spending too much adding what are, until then, well-intentioned but superfluous comments.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Most human beings go through depression or some form of mental health problem for a brief period of time. Because there is no proper definition of mental disability, I would gladly execute the whole population for you.

Also, mental disability, is not properly defined. The bill is clearly xenophobic in nature, a sign of madness. According to the definitions in this bill, I would gladly execute all of the government body for showing signs of xenophobia. Governments that enact genocide are by definition insane or mentally disabled. I am more than glad to help you in doing this.

Further, the mentally disabled, if they are not competent are less of a threat than the able bodied insane. Mass executions will not improve the mental stability of your population, they will encourage the paranoid, the xenophobic, and megalomaniac to seek power.

It seems there are a lot of able bodied people in your land who are willing to committ insane acts.

OOC: The title you gave to this bill is ridiculous, it implies that you want to execute all the people with mental disabilities. This is just a reaction to the title.

Well, alright. I take back what I said about the title.

OOC: The title you gave to this bill is ridiculous, it implies that you want to execute all the people with mental disabilities. This is just a reaction to the title.

Ah. Yeah, we already got past the title a page ago and are working away at the content of the proposal itself

OOC: The title you gave to this bill is ridiculous, it implies that you want to execute all the people with mental disabilities. This is just a reaction to the title.
No, it doesn't, and here's a clue: next time, read all that stuff after the title. That's called 'the proposal'. It's quite important.

I apologize: I expressed my beliefs twice in a row--see below post.

In response to the Ambassador of Forgottenlands,

It appears that Dagnus Reardinius doesn't believe in extenuating circumstances, nor does he believe in varying the punishment to suit the specific situation of the crime committed.
I believe in following through with the punishment specified by the law with no exceptions. However, read on; my main point is following this quote.

We wonder if the representative from Dagnus Reardinius would likewise be opposed to UNR #94: Right to Self Protection which suggested to our members that they be lenient if not acquit those who have committed murder as an act of self-defense.
In my perspective, it is far more sensible to justify self-defense than to justify the reducing of a punishment of a mentally retarded person. Why do we create laws? In one form or the next, the answer is to restrict crime. If one acting in self-defense kills another, it is not immoral to release this person: this person, as far as this case is concerned, will not commit more crimes if released--he/she is not prone to it and it was only under the circumstance of being attacked that urged him/her to act as he/she did (see, Ambassador, I do in fact believe in extenuating circumstances). In contrast, however, a mentally retarded person, if released back into the public, is liable to perform another crime--especially important, since we are speak of a crime worthy of execution. THAT is why one would reduce the punishment for one acting in self-defense rather than one whom is mentally retarded.

We wonder if the representative from Dagnus Reardinius would have their own spies arrested for espionage.
Certainly not. That is like executing your troops for killing invaders. Now let's compare the situations...
1. Executing troops for killing invaders.
2. Executing man--mentally retarded or not--for shootings (presumably in a non-militaristic setting).
They are far different.

We wonder if the representative from Dagnus Reardinius would issue a warning instead of a ticket to a man who just had his brake lights smashed and is on his way to the shop,
Yes, I would. He should have called an insurance agency. And if he does not have relations to any, his warning will perhaps spur him to. If, even after that incident, he does not, then that will be his own fault. He will perhaps then find other means to legally remove his car without resorting to driving it. Just because his lights were smashed in an accident that was no fault of his own does not make his driving on the roads (I assume, at night, since the point would be null otherwise) any less a danger to the others on the road and to himself. The law that restricts a man from driving in such conditions is to prevent this danger. To break it is to endanger people.


whether they'd let a man go because he left the shopping center with goods he hadn't paid for but fully intended (and had the means to) pay for said items.
No! No, no, NO! That is *ridiculous*! Why would you even consider that? How are you supposed to be able to tell whether he is sincere when he tells you he intended to pay for it? If he had the means to, he should have returned with these "means" and retrieved the goods *then*. NO, I would not let a thief go if he told me he was going to pay for it tomorrow.


Yet for some reason, this does not seem to be good enough for the Ambassador from Dagnus Reardinius. For some reason, the Ambassador believes that we should punish for the sake of punishing these people. Tell me, Mr Ambassador, are you truly deluded and sadistic enough to punish without purpose, or is there actually a theory behind your madness?
In response to the bolded part of your response, I believe that we should punish for the sake of upholding the law. Are you punishing people for the sake of punishing them if you jail someone?
Indeed, were I to want to punish people for the sake of punishing people, being poor would be a crime and would have a penalty of a fine. Yet, that particular policy is not in my nation.


Mr Ambassador, for what reason does your legal system hand out any punishment?
My legal system hands out punishment in order to reduce crime, for the sake of order and upholding the law. If a law calls for an execution for a criminal, certainly it seems following through as the law calls me to fulfills these objectives.

Respectfully (unlike others),
Samuel Reardinius

We find it interesting that the Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius runs from the assumption that a person who has committed a crime will commit again. We find it absolutely astonishing that the nation of Dagnus Reardinius runs on the policy of "kill murderers because they will kill again". We find it absolutely appalling that punishment is met not to teach a lesson or to dissuade others from committing a crime but because of the possibility of recommission of a crime. We ask the representative of Dagnus Reardinius if he kills other mentally handicapped individuals because they, too, don't understand the concept of "murder is bad" and thus might commit murder. We wonder why Dagnus Reardinius is so willing to assume that someone who doesn't understand the concept of murder would be willing or likely to commit it twice. We are truly appalled that the representative is so willing to kill the mentally handicapped rather than to help them and give them a chance to redeem themselves. These are not premeditated actions we speak of. Hell, in many cases one could argue that these people are capable of little more than Criminal Manslaughter. Yet the representative of Dagnus Reardinius would happily put their heads through the Guillotine.

Though I suppose the fact that Ambassador Reardinius said:

NO, I would not let a thief go if he told me he was going to pay for it tomorrow.

When I was implying someone who forgot to stop at the clerk desk on his way out the door (something that, I admit, I've done plenty of times for varying reasons but all of them fully unintentional) shows that his ability to see extenuating circumstances or to broaden his horizon about possible alternate situations is not highly developed.

That said, there are plenty of places where regular customers come and go and their relationship with the managers have provided them the ability to indeed promise to "pay for it tomorrow".

Why do we create laws? In one form or the next, the answer is to restrict crime.

*snip*

My legal system hands out punishment in order to reduce crime, for the sake of order and upholding the law.

We would observe that the honoured ambassador's definitions are circular. Apparently the legal system hands out punishments in order to uphold itself. As a philosophy, this clearly leaves a great deal to be desired.

It will, we trust, not surprise him to learn that we disagree with him at the most basic level of definition. To us, laws are created to protect individuals or organisations, and their creation defines crime. The critical difference between our views is that for us, laws have a purpose, whereas for him, laws are an end in themselves. It is a logical consequence of our position that sentences for laws broken should fit not the crime, but the criminal. The criminal must be brought to understand why his or her actions are unacceptable, and to desire not to repeat them.

Those who focus on the second aspect of purpose solely, that of punishment, do themselves and their nations a great disfavour. Without understanding, repentence does not easily follow, and without repentence there is not even the slightest guarantee that the criminal will not reoffend. Without that hope, the whole system of law and order becomes pointless, for it does not and cannot achieve its goal.

A glib reading of this philosophy may seem to endorse the use of extreme sanctions against those whose mental states preclude their comprehension of the consequences of their actions. This would however be misleading; a more careful consideration places such people in a context of others who are considered to have mental or social illnesses resulting in their various crimes, excluding those trivial cases who break the law through ignorance. We firmly believe that regarding criminal sentencing as a treatment is a vastly more productive approach than that which the Ambassador seems to champion, in that it has a significantly greater likelihood of returning the criminal as a productive, functioning member of society. Execution, we note in passing, has no chance of ever achieving this objective.

We hope Ambassador Reardinius will forgive us for asserting that his unwavering attitude to sentencing, particularly coupled with a punishment-oriented mentality that holds the law to be its own justification, is essentially a doomed one. It is inflexible by definition, causing such morally repugnant anomalies as we believe Ambassador Macdougall has succinctly outlined, and attempts to fix such anomalies as may concern a nation inevitably add to the complexity of the system until the only people to benefit from it in any way are the lawyers. While we have no objection in principle to allowing people to benefit from their expertise in legal matters, such a system will inevitably collapse under its own weight sooner or later.

Removing negatives from society will increase its positive value. In addition, the world is overpopulated what with every other nation running around with 1-godknowswhat billion(s) of people. In fact, governments are too tight on the use of the death penalty. In addition, there is only a chance (as in not surefire) that the person will, as you say, turn away from antisocial behavior and become productive citizens. Why waste the effort when (I assume) your nation is not completely crashing? A simple removal will do better.

"Simple removal", as you put it, is an amazingly bland phrase for what you're advocating - ending the life of a sentient being, particularly one who is mentally unable to comprehend or control their actions. You may choose to cloak your horrific practices in such innocent-sounding phrases, but in reality, a legal system that practices execution on mentally disabled individuals has hands that are pretty damn bloody themselves. The fact that you consider the effort to rehabilitate people who you acknowledge could be saved a waste of effort also speaks volumes about your social priorities. You may also want to bear in mind that the NSUN encompasses many worlds and nations that have no "overpopulation" problem whatsoever. Altanar, for example, has massive areas of unpopulated land, as do our neighbors.

And what *I* said is that if the punishment for the crime is to be executed, they must be. Why is it moral to punish a mentally disabled person in the form of a fine or a prison term, but not in the form of capital punishment (should the situation so require it)? You apply some laws but ignore others?

Once again, I am not advocating ignoring the law. I am simply advocating using one's brain, and some common sense and compassion, when enforcing it. Having the same boiler-plate punishment ready for every single person who commits a crime may be efficient, but only because it saves you the trouble of thinking.

It is reprehensible and barbaric to refuse to create a law then refuse to (fully) enforce it.

We do enforce our laws in Altanar. We just don't do it by remote control with our hand over the "smite" button. We prefer to actually think before we enforce our laws, especially when we're talking about ending a life.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

"Simple removal", as you put it, is an amazingly bland phrase for what you're advocating - ending the life of a sentient being, particularly one who is mentally unable to comprehend or control their actions.
A contradiction. It is not a sentient being if it is not able to comprehend or control their actions. That is what we define animals as (the "comprehend" part, in any case).

You may choose to cloak your horrific practices in such innocent-sounding phrases, but in reality, a legal system that practices execution on mentally disabled individuals has hands that are pretty damn bloody themselves.
If I bloody my hands in executing one whom has violated a law that calls for an execution, then let them be.

The fact that you consider the effort to rehabilitate people who you acknowledge could be saved a waste of effort also speaks volumes about your social priorities.
Perhaps this is where we differ. I do not believe in the social priorities of a government beyond that of protecting their citizens from an outside force as well as upholding laws created to maintain order within the country (ie with a police force and a court system). Beyond that, the citizens will create their own systems. Those systems that do not work will, unsurprisingly, fail. Those systems that are good and achieve much are those that will flourish.

Once again, I am not advocating ignoring the law. I am simply advocating using one's brain, and some common sense and compassion, when enforcing it.
Why should compassion be a factor in enforcing a law?

Having the same boiler-plate punishment ready for every single person who commits a crime may be efficient, but only because it saves you the trouble of thinking.
Just as having the same boiler-plate price for a particular fruit in a market is efficient, but only because it saves the owner the trouble of considering whether the price should be lowered or heightened due to the buyers need and income?

We do enforce our laws in Altanar. We just don't do it by remote control with our hand over the "smite" button.
The hand is not over the "smite" button except when the law calls for a smiting in the event of said law being broken.

We prefer to actually think before we enforce our laws, especially when we're talking about ending a life.
Law enforcement should not entail thinking--is justice not blind? Law creation should entail thinking.

Respectfully,
The Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius

This will probably surprize some, but I would like to extend a welcoming talon to the Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius and her representatives to these halls. Regardless of how one views their take on criminal justice, it is refreshing to see a representative defend their views to the hilt while still being most respectful. I wager they are well aware of how unpopular their position is, but they continue to defend their way of life.

I'm quite impressed. Especially since they haven't spiraled into obscenity and invective like many new (and sadly, many veteran) delegations do. Again, welcome and thank you.

As for their views on law and justice, I have to admit a certain fondness for their perspective. It reminds me of the Autumn Court of Hyperborea under Princess Aurora. Granted, they were a barbaric people (death was a standard punishment for just about everything), but the underlying idea of uniform application of the law was still there. Well, uniform for the lower classes.

Okay, so it's not a perfect parallel, but it was a long time ago. Nostalgia clouds my memory from time to time. Still, my cold blood is warmed by these memories, and I can't say I completely oppose them.

I look forward to future contributions from the Dominion.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Ambassador of TMGH,

Thank you for your welcoming words and your support (if not of the issue, then of my nation). Actually, I welcome the contradictions. This occupation as the ambassador of the Dominion would hardly be as entertaining were everyone to agree with the Dominion's stance.

With thanks and a smile,
The Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius

A contradiction. It is not a sentient being if it is not able to comprehend or control their actions. That is what we define animals as (the "comprehend" part, in any case).
Frankly, we are appalled. To redefine a human being (or other sophont) who has, by accident or genetic misfortune, reduced mental capacity as an animal is not the mark of a cultured society. To then refuse to assist such people who clearly cannot manage without assistance is cruel and inhumane.

Perhaps this is where we differ. I do not believe in the social priorities of a government beyond that of protecting their citizens from an outside force as well as upholding laws created to maintain order within the country (ie with a police force and a court system). Beyond that, the citizens will create their own systems. Those systems that do not work will, unsurprisingly, fail. Those systems that are good and achieve much are those that will flourish.
While we are touched by your faith in the free market system as applied to social structures, a faith we in no way share, we would observe that the rigidness and completeness of the legal framework within which social systems operate will have a marked affect on their failure rate. Further, the degree to which a government gives a lead (or not) will affect how supportive such structures are. What you outline would appear to encourage only the more extreme forms of libertarianism, since there would appear to be neither legal nor cultural advantages to aiding others.

Why should compassion be a factor in enforcing a law?
Because no law has ever been written which has taken into account all possible circumstances at all possible points in the future. Laws therefore require interpretation, which is what judges do. Enlightened judges can and do ignore the letter of the law to preserve its spirit. This is fundamentally an exercise in compassion.

Just as having the same boiler-plate price for a particular fruit in a market is efficient, but only because it saves the owner the trouble of considering whether the price should be lowered or heightened due to the buyers need and income?
Or the availability of the fruit at reduced prices in nearby markets, causing buyers to go elsewhere? This is not a strategy for survival in the long term.

The hand is not over the "smite" button except when the law calls for a smiting in the event of said law being broken.
Or in other words, the hand is indeed over the "smite" button.

Law enforcement should not entail thinking--is justice not blind? Law creation should entail thinking.
Both should entail thinking, for truly just justice is not blind at all to need.

... It reminds me of the Autumn Court of Hyperborea under Princess Aurora. Granted, they were a barbaric people ...

*mutters bitterly to Dagnus Reardinius rep*

Now look what you've done! Have you any idea how many aeons of reminiscences she's got stored up? We'll be here for months!

*stomps off to Strangers' Bar*

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

Now look what you've done! Have you any idea how many aeons of reminiscences she's got stored up?Oh, you should be thankful, Mme Reilly... ten thousand years ago, we didn't have cameras, so you won't have to suffer through a life-time of slides.

And I won't bore you the details of the Autumn Court. Some things are better left dead and buried, I'm afraid.


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

A contradiction. It is not a sentient being if it is not able to comprehend or control their actions. That is what we define animals as (the "comprehend" part, in any case).

So you consider mentally disabled people animals? Charming.

If I bloody my hands in executing one whom has violated a law that calls for an execution, then let them be.

When you advocate a practice as distasateful as executing the mentally disabled, you shouldn't be surprised when people speak out against it.

Perhaps this is where we differ. I do not believe in the social priorities of a government beyond that of protecting their citizens from an outside force as well as upholding laws created to maintain order within the country (ie with a police force and a court system). Beyond that, the citizens will create their own systems. Those systems that do not work will, unsurprisingly, fail. Those systems that are good and achieve much are those that will flourish.

That would indeed be where we differ...we would never limit our social priorities to such a narrow scope.

Why should compassion be a factor in enforcing a law?

Because compassion helps to bring truly just and fair resolution to a crime. It also helps avoid the sort of assembly-line executions you seem to be in favor of.

Just as having the same boiler-plate price for a particular fruit in a market is efficient, but only because it saves the owner the trouble of considering whether the price should be lowered or heightened due to the buyers need and income?

A living being is not a piece of produce, at least not in a civilized nation.

The hand is not over the "smite" button except when the law calls for a smiting in the event of said law being broken.

Congratulations. That is the most roundabout and bureaucratic way of saying "yeah, we kill everyone we can" I have ever seen.

Law enforcement should not entail thinking--is justice not blind? Law creation should entail thinking.

If your law enforcement people never think, it's a wonder you ever solve any crimes at all. Or do you just haul off to jail the first person you see walking down the street every time, and call it good? That would certainly be more efficient also.

As the representative from Gobbannium ably pointed out, a truly just legal system applies thought and compassion at every stage of the process. Hopefully your legal system will figure that out someday. Until then, for your sake, I hope you (or someone you care about) doesn't get convicted by your wonderfully efficient system.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Only the blind think Justice is likewise.

Justice is not justice if it is not fair. Justice cannot be fair if it cannot be flexible to the realities of the situation allotted

But there is little to which Ambassador Reardinius and I disagree on completely.

Is sentience a matter of the individual, or the species? Must each individual prove their own sentience? Is a human being who cannot think properly automatically no longer a human? To what madness does this claim end? Will he soon claim that those who disagree with him upon a particular issue "[unable] to comprehend or control" the consequences to their actions as it would create a world that is not his ideal? Will he tell those that do not believe such a world to be their ideal to be mentally inferior? We have seen countless ambassadors walk through these halls that have said this very thing - so I ask, is Ambassador Reardinius one of these people? One more concerned about how a person matches up to the bar he sets than he is to what that individual is?

Our mentally handicapped are far from non-sentient. This body once looked at sentience - or sapience, as it were - from the perspective of being able to speak, to form thoughts and to express them in a method that is distinguishable and understandable to this body. There are few who would be classified as mentally handicapped who would fail this test, just as there are few that would classify as mentally handicapped who would fail multiple other sapience tests.

But then again, the Ambassador compares his fellow citizens to fruit

The Ambassador speaks of his nation's sole purposes being to protect citizens and to maintain order - to conduct the police and military. To the military, we will ignore but we must ask the Ambassador: what is order? How is order maintained by executing those who are incapable of understanding what is wrong? By what justification does the Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius deem that order is maintained by executing individuals? I believe he has gone at length about criminals re-offending, but we ask: by what standard has he determined that all criminals will re-offend? Further, is the law so totally blind that it will not pause to think and determine whether a criminal will re-offend or whether a criminal will be a productive member of society? Does the law pause to think of whether they can find a way to make the criminal in question a better person (or, at least, a person who will not re-offend), or is it so totally blind that even that is a concept lost upon them? Why is the law of Dagnus Reardinius more concerned about the punishment than the purpose?

But perhaps the most disagreeable position that the representative of Dagnus Reardinius has presented is the claim that law should be without compassion. The claim shows how fully incapable the nation of Dagnus Reardinius is in. The Representative of Dagnus Reardinius has said that self-defense is a fully legal reason to kill someone. What about Justified homicide? What about thousands of other possible situations and exceptions that exist in many legal systems simply because the legislative branch failed to notice the possibility. Are they to condemn people to death because of a mistake the legislature made? Are they to be fully blind to the various extenuating circumstances and end it there? For what purpose? Is it not possible that by failing to recognize the extenuating circumstances, that your justice system would actually be promoting a breakdown in order? That it would be promoting an abuse of some form?

Law requires compassion and thought to bring about justice. Law requires compassion and thought to protect order. Without it, law is merely another body of killers, looking for their next victim.

So you consider mentally disabled people animals? Charming.
Only under the conditions set forth by the Ambassador I quoted: that an animal is unable to comprehend and control its actions.


When you advocate a practice as distasateful as executing the mentally disabled, you shouldn't be surprised when people speak out against it.

I am not surprised.

A living being is not a piece of produce, at least not in a civilized nation.
Are you vegetarian, Ambassador?

Because compassion helps to bring truly just and fair resolution to a crime. It also helps avoid the sort of assembly-line executions you seem to be in favor of.

*snips*

Congratulations. That is the most roundabout and bureaucratic way of saying "yeah, we kill everyone we can" I have ever seen.
Please keep in mind that it is not true that every single penalty in my nation is to be executed. Be reminded the context of our discussion: the execution of a mentally deficient who has broken a law calling for an execution.

Or do you just haul off to jail the first person you see walking down the street every time, and call it good? That would certainly be more efficient also.
I *would* haul everyone walking down a street to jail *if* walking down a street was an offense punishable by a jail term. And it would not be more efficient, as it would require a massive effort put forth by the government.


As the representative from Gobbannium ably pointed out, a truly just legal system applies thought and compassion at every stage of the process.
That is your stance.

Until then, for your sake, I hope you (or someone you care about) doesn't get convicted by your wonderfully efficient system.
I am aware of my stance and what it entails. Therefore, if I break a law that requires me to become executed, undoubtedly, it will ensue, regardless of whether or not I am mentally disabled.

Most respectfully,
The Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius

I would like to remind the Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius that he has 3 people challenging his claims, that these individuals have differing arguments that combined cover his entire set of claims, and that just because he ignores two of our arguments doesn't make them any less of arguments and remain unopposed. So long as he continues to ignore these arguments, their claims stand.

We ask the Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius to face his full opposition and give them their deserved due and actually respond to their arguments.

Only the blind think Justice is likewise.

Please proceed to support that statement.


Justice is not justice if it is not fair. Justice cannot be fair if it cannot be flexible to the realities of the situation allotted.
Justice is justice at all times and at all places. Fairness is dependent on the creation of "fair" laws.


But there is little to which Ambassador Reardinius and I disagree on completely.
Thank you.


Is sentience a matter of the individual, or the species? Must each individual prove their own sentience? Is a human being who cannot think properly automatically no longer a human?
A human being who cannot think as a human being is only a human being physically, but has mentally devolved into an animal. It is not empty shells I want in my nation, but capable minds.


Will he soon claim that those who disagree with him upon a particular issue "[unable] to comprehend or control" the consequences to their actions as it would create a world that is not his ideal?
I have not and I will not.

Will he tell those that do not believe such a world to be their ideal to be mentally inferior?
I have not and I will not. Never in my arguments have I devolved into insulting my fellow Ambassadors and be assured that I will not. I will continue to conduct myself with grace even as other Ambassadors devolve into pointless assumptions.

We have seen countless ambassadors walk through these halls that have said this very thing - so I ask, is Ambassador Reardinius one of these people?
Decide as you will. Your opinion in this matter does not change myself nor my stance.

One more concerned about how a person matches up to the bar he sets than he is to what that individual is?
I have never asked you to agree with me.

Our mentally handicapped are far from non-sentient.
Please note that the Ambassador I quoted specifically said, "cannot comprehend or control his actions." That is indeed non-sentient.

But then again, the Ambassador compares his fellow citizens to fruit
Excuse me?

The Ambassador speaks of his nation's sole purposes being to protect citizens and to maintain order - to conduct the police and military. To the military, we will ignore but we must ask the Ambassador: what is order? How is order maintained by executing those who are incapable of understanding what is wrong?
And how will executing those who are incapable of understanding what is wrong when they have already committed a wrong bring about chaos?

By what justification does the Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius deem that order is maintained by executing individuals?
By justification, the Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius deem that order is maintained by upholding laws (ie by executing individuals who have broken a law that calls for a penalty of execution).

I believe he has gone at length about criminals re-offending, but we ask: by what standard has he determined that all criminals will re-offend?
I have not determined that all criminals will re-offend. However, when an individual has broken a law as serious as to call for an execution, it cannot be risked.

Further, is the law so totally blind that it will not pause to think and determine whether a criminal will re-offend or whether a criminal will be a productive member of society?
Yes.

Does the law pause to think of whether they can find a way to make the criminal in question a better person (or, at least, a person who will not re-offend), or is it so totally blind that even that is a concept lost upon them?
Is it likely that this criminal will achieve enough for society that it is worth *attempting* to rehabilitate him?

Why is the law of Dagnus Reardinius more concerned about the punishment than the purpose?
The purpose is to maintain order. To maintain order is done by upholding the law. Upholding the law is done by carrying out the punishments as specified by the law.

But perhaps the most disagreeable position that the representative of Dagnus Reardinius has presented is the claim that law should be without compassion.
Why is it disagreeable?


The claim shows how fully incapable the nation of Dagnus Reardinius is in.
Please restate your second sentence. I do not understand what you mean.

The Representative of Dagnus Reardinius has said that self-defense is a fully legal reason to kill someone.
I have not said that. Please review my words.

What about Justified homicide? What about thousands of other possible situations and exceptions that exist in many legal systems simply because the legislative branch failed to notice the possibility.
If the people are concerned, perhaps they will elect more thorough people to the legislative branch.

Are they to condemn people to death because of a mistake the legislature made?
The legislature is a representation of the people due to the nature of elections. As such, the condemning of death is in the hands of the people.

Are they to be fully blind to the various extenuating circumstances and end it there? For what..*snipped*..it would be promoting an abuse of some form?
As I have said, my nation does not ignore extenuating circumstances. However, they must be clearly detailed in the law.


Law requires compassion and thought to bring about justice. Law requires compassion and thought to protect order.
That is your stance and surely you will uphold it. However, it is not mine.

Without it, law is merely another body of killers, looking for their next victim.
Law does not require compassion. The purpose of law is to keep order. Compassion is not needed to do so. Thought, of course, is needed--in the creation of these laws. Justice is manifested in the punishment called by these laws and that is all.

Respectfully,
The Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius

I would like to remind the Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius that he has 3 people challenging his claims, that these individuals have differing arguments that combined cover his entire set of claims, and that just because he ignores two of our arguments doesn't make them any less of arguments and remain unopposed. So long as he continues to ignore these arguments, their claims stand.

We ask the Ambassador of Dagnus Reardinius to face his full opposition and give them their deserved due and actually respond to their arguments.
I have not ignored them. I have responded to each of the arguments individually. However, my arguments are reviewed by a troop of editors with the official occupation of Moderator and said review may take a while.

Respectfully,
The Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius

Sadly, the Moderators seem to have lost my reply to the Ambassador of Gobbannium in the midst of their heavy paperwork. Fortunately, I stored a copy on my Back Button.


Frankly, we are appalled. To redefine a human being (or other sophont) who has, by accident or genetic misfortune, reduced mental capacity as an animal is not the mark of a cultured society.

It is not the mark of a cultured society to blind yourself.


To then refuse to assist such people who clearly cannot manage without assistance is cruel and inhumane.
What can they bring to society that I should assist them in their survival?


While we are touched by your faith in the free market system as applied to social structures, a faith we in no way share, we would observe that the rigidness and completeness of the legal framework within which social systems operate will have a marked affect on their failure rate.

[quote]Further, the degree to which a government gives a lead (or not) will affect how supportive such structures are.
If the government does not give a lead to any structure, the lead of the government becomes a non-factor in how supportive they are.

What you outline would appear to encourage only the more extreme forms of libertarianism, since there would appear to be neither legal nor cultural advantages to aiding others.
I will take that as a compliment and thank you.


Because no law has ever been written which has taken into account all possible circumstances at all possible points in the future. Laws therefore require interpretation, which is what judges do. Enlightened judges can and do ignore the letter of the law to preserve its spirit. This is fundamentally an exercise in compassion.
I do not believe in the exercise of compassion within the practice of law.


Or the availability of the fruit at reduced prices in nearby markets, causing buyers to go elsewhere? This is not a strategy for survival in the long term.

That is a strategy for survival of those who offer the best products at the lowest prices. Such a structure could only be beneficial.


Or in other words, the hand is indeed over the "smite" button.

If you must maintain that, then yes, it is over the smite button.


Both should entail thinking, for truly just justice is not blind at all to need.
Others' need should not be a factor in any dealing between two or more parties.


Respectfully,
The Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius

However, my arguments are reviewed by a troop of editors with the official occupation of Moderator and said review may take a while.

I'm guessing you're talking about the Moderated Status thing. You should be over that by now, so stop double-posting your answers. Or perhaps you think we review every post and vet the content? Nosiree. Not gonna happen.


( ... has it really been almost two years since DemonLordEnigma ceased to exist?)

I'm guessing you're talking about the Moderated Status thing. You should be over that by now, so stop double-posting your answers. Or perhaps you think we review every post and vet the content? Nosiree. Not gonna happen.
I do not understand you. I have double-posted once, yesterday. I have responded to all three arguments against me individually.

The Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius

I do not understand you. I have double-posted once, yesterday.
The posts that 'disappeared' were in fact right here, awaiting approval, invisible to everyone except mods. You posted the "It is not the mark of a cultured society to blind yourself" post a total of three times, and I've since deleted two of them.

Moderated Status posts get approved 4 or 5 times a day, not every 3 minutes. Be a little patient, 'k?

The posts that 'disappeared' were in fact right here, awaiting approval, invisible to everyone except mods. You posted the "It is not the mark of a cultured society to blind yourself" post a total of three times, and I've since deleted two of them.

Moderated Status posts get approved 4 or 5 times a day, not every 3 minutes. Be a little patient, 'k?
I apologize. I was only looking to put off such accusations as the Ambassador of Forgottenlands put forth. I thank you for your patience with me and my newly formed nation.

Respectfully,
The Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius

OOC: Sorry - I was a tad irritated because you only got Altanar yesterday then started with him today. Personally, I favor responding to everyone in one post, but meh.

IC: There is much I wish to address said by the representative fo Dagnus Reardinius, but I feel it is important to address something that the Representative is unaware of.

Is it likely that this criminal will achieve enough for society that it is worth *attempting* to rehabilitate him?

The President who hired me has had numerous criminals and ex-criminals working for him, people he helped rehabilitate and one who was under continual and progressive rehabilitation that he installed as Vice President for the Colony of Angel Fire and later became Prime Minister when she became recognized as a full nation within the Forgotten Territories. His extensive work with these people and their experience that would have earned them instance life sentences in many nations (and their activities have now been deemed illegal under UN legislation) is what propelled the Forgotten Territories into the position of the undeniable Superpower of Aberdeen.

However, the fact that Forgottenlands has only rehabilitation centers, hasn't held a single jail cell outside holding cells in over 3 years and has likewise seen near zero crime rates in that time period has clouded my judgement on how effective it is in maintaining order.

The President who hired me has had numerous criminals and ex-criminals working for him, people he helped rehabilitate and one who was under continual and progressive rehabilitation that he installed as Vice President for the Colony of Angel Fire and later became Prime Minister when she became recognized as a full nation within the Forgotten Territories.
OOC: Never in my arguments have I used a completely made up "reality" to support my argument. Please do not. It is baseless. For example, I can say: "I follow through perfectly with every punishment called for by the law and without exception or compassion, and the Dominion functions perfectly fine. In fact, according to a nation-wide poll, people rate my stances 10 points out of 10!" However, I do not, because that would be using a completely made up thing (not even hypothetical, really) to support an argument.

However, the fact that Forgottenlands has only rehabilitation centers, hasn't held a single jail cell outside holding cells in over 3 years and has likewise seen near zero crime rates in that time period has clouded my judgement on how effective it is in maintaining order.
Still OOC: I do not know if it does, but even if your nation site says these things, those words are generated by an algorithm (created by a human being) using your response to the "issues" as an input. It does not show the result of applying yours or my beliefs to the real world. If it was truly accurate, the governments of the world would have taken it over for their own uses :). I believe in this thread, we are more arguing the point and spirit behind the issue.

Respectfully,
The Dominion

OOC: Never in my arguments have I used a completely made up "reality" to support my argument. Please do not.

OOC: Why not? All the nations on NS are a part of a "made up 'reality,'" so why can't we use examples from our nations?

OOC: Why not? All the nations on NS are a part of a "made up 'reality,'" so why can't we use examples from our nations?
Please fully read my reply to the Ambassador of Forgottenlands.

The Dominion

Please fully read my reply to the Ambassador of Forgottenlands.

The Dominion

OOC: I did, now answer my question.

OOC: I did, now answer my question.

Why not? All the nations on NS are a part of a "made up 'reality,'" so why can't we use examples from our nations?
OOC: I will essentially repeat what I have already said (which you obviously didnt understand): The nations of NS are not an accurate representation of the implementation of the ideas we are discussing. The status of your nation is created by an algorithm and thus is mechanized, something that the true world is not--and we are more arguing the importance of the ideas. In any case, if you have a real argument, please submit it rather than hounding me regarding unrelated topics.

OOC: I will essentially repeat what I have already said (which you obviously didnt understand): The nations of NS are not an accurate representation of the implementation of the ideas we are discussing. The status of your nation is created by an algorithm and thus is mechanized, something that the true world is not--and we are more arguing the importance of the ideas. In any case, if you have a real argument, please submit it rather than hounding me regarding unrelated topics.

OOC: While that may be true, it is also true that NS=/=RL and in fact we have a rule regarding UN proposals which states that you can't put RL references in proposals. And while you may not like the idea of using examples from our nations during debates, they are perfectly valid.

OOC: I will essentially repeat what I have already said (which you obviously didnt understand): The nations of NS are not an accurate representation of the implementation of the ideas we are discussing. The status of your nation is created by an algorithm and thus is mechanized, something that the true world is not--and we are more arguing the importance of the ideas. In any case, if you have a real argument, please submit it rather than hounding me regarding unrelated topics.

Our debate is IC using IC personas with IC beliefs that may or may not match our actual beliefs. So long as it retains the status as an IC debate, IC examples (within reason: godmodding, of course, is out.)

On a different note: the specifics of my example towards the actual individuals is actually fairly realistic and their capabilities coupled with the laws of the NS World (as defined by the game mechanics) actually make their net effects fairly realistic. Even without the bugged stats, they would've been invaluable members of society and there is a reason why most nations take defectors. On that latter point, at least, I suspect we agree.

If you want to have an OOC principle debate on the matter, try General. Here, we're discussing UN proposals, resolutions, their effects upon nations, and looking at the varying opinions held by those nations. Those nations are made from what their history and status is so their representatives should be too. therefore, the argument is very valid.

OOC: Fine.

IC:

The Dominion does not present a defense against using one's nation as a factor in an argument of principles. I take it then, since you are using that as an argument, you have no further points to dispute my stance and the replies I have posted?

Respectfully,
The Dominion

Only under the conditions set forth by the Ambassador I quoted: that an animal is unable to comprehend and control its actions.

The belief that a person who has disabilities or difficulties with comprehension or control, due to mental illness or accident, is somehow an animal is inherently repugnant to us.

Are you vegetarian, Ambassador?

No. However, cows and pigs are not, to my knowledge, committing crimes in Altanar. If they do, I'll be sure to let you know. Incidentally, those would be considered livestock, not produce or fruit.

Please keep in mind that it is not true that every single penalty in my nation is to be executed. Be reminded the context of our discussion: the execution of a mentally deficient who has broken a law calling for an execution.

I am well aware of the context. However, since you are so adamant that compassion should never enter legal decisions, why don't you just execute anyone that commits a crime? Wouldn't that be more efficient? Or is there some other underlying reason you don't just run everyone through a wood chipper?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Or is there some other underlying reason you don't just run everyone through a wood chipper?

Perhaps because it's just really, really messy?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It is not the mark of a cultured society to blind yourself.
On that we agree. We merely hold that you, taking the grim view of utility, are the blinded one.

What can they bring to society that I should assist them in their survival?
Depending on the nature of the mental disability, almost any job. Some may be suited for repetative work that involves just sufficient intelligent input that it cannot trivially be automated, it is true, but for others higher mathematics is as simple as breathing. Do not make the error of equating intelligence with the ability to comprehend consequences.

Art is more problematic, for there comprehension is more key to success. None the less, many mentally disabled people do produce quite beautiful paintings, sculptures, music and the like.

Possibly most important of all is the joy that the mentally ill can bring to their family and friends, again depending on the nature of their disability. Even autistic children have their charms, while few are more loving than those suffering from Down's Syndrome.

We believe we have adequately demonstrated that even in the limited view of utilitarianism, your blanket assertion is false.

If the government does not give a lead to any structure, the lead of the government becomes a non-factor in how supportive they are.
No so. A lack of lead is still a lead, indeed a very dispiriting one.

I will take that as a compliment and thank you.
It wasn't, and we regret that choose not to heed the warning.

I do not believe in the exercise of compassion within the practice of law.
Then you live in a very cold state.

That is a strategy for survival of those who offer the best products at the lowest prices. Such a structure could only be beneficial.
A shame, then, that the comment to which we were responding was advocating fixed prices so that the trader was not required to think, something which produces neither the best products nor the lowest prices.

Others' need should not be a factor in any dealing between two or more parties.
Others' needs should always be a factor in any dealing between two or more parties. It is on this fundamental divide between selflessness and selfishness that we suspect our nations will never agree.

OOC: Fine.

IC:

The Dominion does not present a defense against using one's nation as a factor in an argument of principles. I take it then, since you are using that as an argument, you have no further points to dispute my stance and the replies I have posted?

Respectfully,
The Dominion

No, there is plenty I wish to reply to, but I suspect that I may not get a good chance to reply for a while.

The belief that a person who has disabilities or difficulties with comprehension or control, due to mental illness or accident, is somehow an animal is inherently repugnant to us.
Not "disabilities or difficulties" --it is "no" comprehension or control. Yes, that person is mentally an animal, perhaps worse. Would you, perhaps, wish to extend a point other than declaring that it is repugnant?

No. However, cows and pigs are not, to my knowledge, committing crimes in Altanar. If they do, I'll be sure to let you know. Incidentally, those would be considered livestock, not produce.
The difference is negligible.

I am well aware of the context. However, since you are so adamant that compassion should never enter legal decisions, why don't you just execute anyone that commits a crime? Wouldn't that be more efficient? Or is there some other underlying reason you don't just run everyone through a wood chipper?
Perhaps the reason is because buying so many wood chippers would be expensive? And yes, it would be more efficient. However, such petty crimes as one's dogging scratching one's neighbor is not worth depleting the nation's population for. In addition, while smaller criminals *who are not mentally disabled to the point of being unable to comprehend or control their actions* have a chance of turning away from their evils (and if they *do* commit more crimes when released back into the public, they will be likely to be committing smaller crimes--NOT breaking laws calling for an execution), the mentally disabled as described above have no to little chance of recuperation. This small chance of recuperation is not worth my government's time and funds, as the potentially recuperated ex-criminal and ex-mentally disabled would be viewed as unlikely to bring a large enough addition to society to offset the time and funds required.

Respectfully,
The Dominion

On that we agree. We merely hold that you, taking the grim view of utility, are the blinded one.
Must one taking a enthusiastic and eternally happy view to be one able to see?

Depending on the nature of the mental disability, almost any job. Some may be suited for repetative work that involves just sufficient intelligent input that it cannot trivially be automated, it is true, but for others higher mathematics is as simple as breathing. Do not make the error of equating intelligence with the ability to comprehend consequences.

*snip*

We believe we have adequately demonstrated that even in the limited view of utilitarianism, your blanket assertion is false.
Please be reminded that we are speaking on mentally disabled who cannot comprehend or control their actions. Should a government assist in their survival, even these actions would not be possible.

No so. A lack of lead is still a lead, indeed a very dispiriting one.
It (the lack of a lead) is not a lead if the government does not extend one to any one party, even ones that are obviously favorable. Indeed, if it is still taken as a lead, after a period of time, the people will learn to ignore the government's advice (or "lead"/"lack of a lead") when it offers none.

Then you live in a very cold state.
And your point is.


A shame, then, that the comment to which we were responding was advocating fixed prices so that the trader was not required to think, something which produces neither the best products nor the lowest prices.
Quite simply, the prices would be fixed by the trader.

Others' needs should always be a factor in any dealing between two or more parties. It is on this fundamental divide between selflessness and selfishness that we suspect our nations will never agree.
You are correct. Selfishness is a moral and practical good required if the world is to survive. All those who believe in selflessness (self-sacrifice) are working towards their own destruction as well as that of others.

My nation's motto: "Never live for the sake of another man."

"One owes no moral obligation to others except the obligation I owe to myself."

However, I suppose that according to your nation's stance, you are an altruist?

OOC: Quoted from Ayn Rand

Respectfully,
The Dominion

Must one taking a enthusiastic and eternally happy view to be one able to see?
This is not what either of us were speaking of, and it does your argument little credit to set up such a straw man. One who deliberately limits his vision to grey utility sees but part of the whole.

Some may be suited for repetative work that involves just sufficient intelligent input that it cannot trivially be automated, it is true, but for others higher mathematics is as simple as breathing. Do not make the error of equating intelligence with the ability to comprehend consequences.
Please be reminded that we are speaking on mentally disabled who cannot comprehend or control their actions. Should a government assist in their survival, even these actions would not be possible.
Please note that you have fallen straight into the trap we warned you of.

It (the lack of a lead) is not a lead if the government does not extend one to any one party, even ones that are obviously favorable. Indeed, if it is still taken as a lead, after a period of time, the people will learn to ignore the government's advice (or "lead"/"lack of a lead") when it offers none.
We were perhaps over-subtle in making our point. A government which gives no lead, gives no inspiration either. It utterly yields control of the directions of growth of its citizens, industries, researchers and so forth; not an inherently bad thing, but one that does lead to chaotic and subdued change only. We suggest to the honoured ambassador that this is not in the best interests of a nation.

Quite simply, the prices would be fixed by the trader.
We observe that you have argued yourself into the reverse of your initial statement.

You are correct. Selfishness is a moral and practical good required if the world is to survive. All those who believe in selflessness (self-sacrifice) are working towards their own destruction as well as that of others.
True, a selfless individual weakens themselves knowingly, but is strengthened by their selfless fellows in a manner that is more than simply additive. The selfish individual is strong by themselves, but is always by themselves.

However, I suppose that according to your nation's stance, you are an altruist?
Personally no, we are not greatly altruistic except in as much as we have taken up the duties we have been elected to rather than delegating them away while we sought an area more conducive to hunting.

Please note that you have fallen straight into the trap we warned you of.

Please refresh my memory. What trap?

We were perhaps over-subtle in making our point. A government which gives no lead, gives no inspiration either. It utterly yields control of the directions of growth of its citizens, industries, researchers and so forth; not an inherently bad thing, but one that does lead to chaotic and subdued change only.
My government's stance is to stay out of economical and social affairs as much as possible. Therefore, such things as you have said are not true in my nation.

We observe that you have argued yourself into the reverse of your initial statement.
Perhaps we have confused ourselves from what the other meant. Here are the parts of our conversation:


Just as having the same boiler-plate price for a particular fruit in a market is efficient, but only because it saves the owner the trouble of considering whether the price should be lowered or heightened due to the buyers need and income?
Here, I was referring to an owner in a particular market (not a market in the larger sense of the word, but a market as in a building selling things). I was speaking how an owner places a price above his goods and does not stand there and decide the price for the customer depending on that customer's need.
Or the availability of the fruit at reduced prices in nearby markets, causing buyers to go elsewhere? This is not a strategy for survival in the long term.
That is a strategy for survival of those who offer the best products at the lowest prices. Such a structure could only be beneficial.
A shame, then, that the comment to which we were responding was advocating fixed prices so that the trader was not required to think, something which produces neither the best products nor the lowest prices.
Where did this idea of fixed price come from? Did you perhaps believe this "fixed price" came from a government's decree? Because in replying, I was speaking about the price fixed by the trader...
Quite simply, the prices would be fixed by the trader.
We observe that you have argued yourself into the reverse of your initial statement.
See bolded.

True, a selfless individual weakens themselves knowingly, but is strengthened by their selfless fellows in a manner that is more than simply additive. The selfish individual is strong by themselves, but is always by themselves.
So when one sacrifices for others, it is expected that everyone around them will sacrifice for them? What if one does not sacrifice? Is it still expected that others sacrifice to them? That, simply and respectfully put, is a rather silly system. When the individuals within a nation act completely on selfish reasons, it will prosper as a whole--even while that is not the goal of these individuals. When sacrifices enter the equation, it self-destructs. When the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that one does not have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does, your economy collapses.* An economy that depends on one's self-interest is much more stable than one that depends on people sacrificing to each other as you can depend on people to act for themselves much more than you can rely on people to sacrifice. (A bit redundant there, I am afraid).

Personally no, we are not greatly altruistic except in as much as we have taken up the duties we have been elected to rather than delegating them away while we sought an area more conducive to hunting.
Those that have been elected in my government has steered the Dominion on the best path possible--for systems to spring up and let those that are evil ultimately fail and for those that are good to prosper. This is a much more accurate way of achieving the best systems rather than having a human mind (or a group of human minds) create a system that may potentially work and be highly unlikely to be the best. But I have given you another opening point.

(OOC: Truly, the NationStates system should have an "Abstain" option when an issue crops up)

Most Respectfully,
The Dominion


OOC: *Essence of this sentence largely derived and partially quoted from the distinguished author Ayn Rand.

(OOC: Truly, the NationStates system should have an "Abstain" option when an issue crops up)It does: "dismiss".

It does: "dismiss".
Huh. I suppose I have been an Ambassador away from my country too long and am forgetting the procedures of the Dominion. I am suitably chastised and thank you for reminding me. Perhaps it is best I return to the Dominion for a while. Tomorrow, a new representative will arrive in my place.

Slightly amused,
The Dominion

Please refresh my memory. What trap?
We attempted to refresh your memory at the time. If the honoured ambassador rereads the quotations in order, he will note the sentence, "Do not make the error of equating intelligence with the ability to comprehend consequences." in our statement. You then appear to have made precisely that equation.

My government's stance is to stay out of economical and social affairs as much as possible. Therefore, such things as you have said are not true in my nation.
We would suggest that the things we have said are true, you merely consider them unimportant. Which is your right, and your loss.

Perhaps we have confused ourselves from what the other meant. Here are the parts of our conversation:
We have indeed confused each other, it seems, and your amplificatory remarks go a great way to clearing that up. All appears to stem from the absence of an apostrophe: you have made it clear that you intended to refer to "the buyer's need and income" (in other words that market owners do not negotiate the price of products with individual customers, which we shall return to in a moment), while we took you to mean "the buyers' need and income" (in other words that traders do not consider the average ability of their target consumers to pay or even desire their wares when fixing their prices, which is precisely what does not happen in any successful marketing enterprise).

We would still take issue with your statement, but it is a different issue and we appear to have been heatedly agreeing earlier. We will certainly grant that it is not common for retailers in Gobbannium to dicker with their clients over prices, though we are aware of nations where this is not only practiced but it is considered rude not to spend some time bargaining, thereby personalising the sale. However, it is most definitely the case that financial service industries, the building trade and associated crafts, and most organisations which deal with conceptually complex products do in fact participate in detailed negotiations over each and every sale, and their estimates of the client's needs and finances will factor into optimising their profit margin while satisfying the client. Such organisations are well aware of the fact that, as delegates have frequently remarked of proposed legislation, one size most emphatically does not fit all.

So when one sacrifices for others, it is expected that everyone around them will sacrifice for them? What if one does not sacrifice? Is it still expected that others sacrifice to them? That, simply and respectfully put, is a rather silly system. When the individuals within a nation act completely on selfish reasons, it will prosper as a whole--even while that is not the goal of these individuals. When sacrifices enter the equation, it self-destructs. When the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that one does not have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does, your economy collapses.* An economy that depends on one's self-interest is much more stable than one that depends on people sacrificing to each other as you can depend on people to act for themselves much more than you can rely on people to sacrifice. (A bit redundant there, I am afraid).

We draw the ambassador's attention to the italicised part of his argument. Clearly we philosophically differ on the truth of the first part: for us it is undoubtedly true that "need, not achievement, is the source of rights." The subsequent clause contains an elementary error: it equates want with need. We do not accept that it is a logical consequence of our position, or of the first clause. The third clause appears to stray even further into the land of the non sequitur; we dimly apprehend that some process of attaching value-judgements to earnedness and belongingness is going on, but we cannot see how those values are being justified. Unless perhaps the ambassador is asserting that one's rights are the pinnacle of one's livelihood in some manner? If that is the case, we would assure him that we regard a person's rights as their minimum entitlement; any person of industry or skill should expect to exceed them. A person of industry or skill who cooperates with his or her fellows will far exceed them.

(OOC: Ayn Rand has been on my "must get round to reading" list for at least a decade and a half now :-)

We attempted to refresh your memory at the time. If the honoured ambassador rereads the quotations in order, he will note the sentence, "Do not make the error of equating intelligence with the ability to comprehend consequences." in our statement. You then appear to have made precisely that equation.
Quite mistaken. I have not equated intelligence to the ability to comprehend consequences, but perhaps you agree that the ability to comprehend actions is a large part of intelligence? In fact, people who cannot comprehend their actions are inherently dangerous and the Dominion believes such people need only prove their danger once before being sentenced to being jailed for the duration of their life. In the face of recovery, should such recovery occur, an early release is advised depending on the seriousness of the crime (it is only natural, a government would be more apprehensive in releasing a man who committed serious crimes even if this man had recovered from his mental illness).

We would suggest that the things we have said are true, you merely consider them unimportant. Which is your right, and your loss.
Potentially. Or potentially my vast gain.

We have indeed confused each other, it seems, and your amplificatory remarks go a great way to cle

*snip*

or even desire their wares when fixing their prices, which is precisely what does not happen in any successful marketing enterprise).
I apologize for my colleague's mistake.

We would still take issue with your statement, but it is a different issue and we appear to have been heatedly agreeing earlier. We will certainly grant that it is not common for retailers in Gobbannium to dicker with their clients over prices, though we are aware of nations where this is not only practiced

*cut short*

negotiations over each and every sale, and their estimates of the client's needs and finances will factor into optimising their profit margin while satisfying the client. Such organisations are well aware of the fact that, as delegates have frequently remarked of proposed legislation, one size most emphatically does not fit all.
I was not aware of this practice as my nation (as you have undoubtedly guessed) denounces such practices. Even with my nation's discouragement (that is actually a real word), the Dominion's occupants are quite content with this system.

We draw the ambassador's attention to the italicised part of his argument. Clearly we philosophically differ on the truth of the first part: for us it is undoubtedly true that "need, not achievement, is the source of rights."
Well if you must stand by such a vile (I apologize for the use of the word, but I cannot find a less direct way of expressing myself) belief, I will not attempt to move you from it.

The subsequent clause contains an elementary error: it equates want with need. We do not accept that it is a logical consequence of our position, or of the first clause.
Please take the whole of the fragment (haha) into consideration. "One does not have to produce, only want." When one does not produce, their "need" inevitably increases (it is actually rather strange to call it need, as they it is assumed they have the tools to do so--but only do not because they expect their need to spur the government to supply them). Therefore, their "want" is a want to gain something without working for it.

The third clause appears to stray even further into the land of the non sequitur; we dimly apprehend that some process of attaching value-judgements to earnedness and belongingness is going on, but we cannot see how those values are being justified.
The third clause: "that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does." In a system where you are expected to sacrifice to everyone else and you expect everyone else to sacrifice to you, you then do not feel entitled to your own wealth--everyone else is sacrificing for you, should you not do the same? And certainly, expecting others to sacrifice to you is the accepting of the unearned.

In such a system, those who attempt to live by it are punished--in that they sacrifice as much as they can--and those who cheat it are rewarded: they sacrifice as little as possible, but yet everyone else is still expected to sacrifice to them. In fact, I already said this, though you have not replied: see below:

If you would, please respond to the following as well:

So when one sacrifices for others, it is expected that everyone around them will sacrifice for them? What if one does not sacrifice? Is it still expected that others sacrifice to them? That, simply and respectfully put, is a rather silly system. When the individuals within a nation act completely on selfish reasons, it will prosper as a whole--even while that is not the goal of these individuals.

*snip*

An economy that depends on one's self-interest is much more stable than one that depends on people sacrificing to each other as you can depend on people to act for themselves much more than you can rely on people to sacrifice. (A bit redundant there, I am afraid).

(OOC: Ayn Rand has been on my "must get round to reading" list for at least a decade and a half now :-)
OOC: She is quite an author. Her Atlas Shrugged is the best of her works and the one that most clearly expresses her ideas, I believe.

Respectfully,
The Dominion

Quite mistaken. I have not equated intelligence to the ability to comprehend consequences, but perhaps you agree that the ability to comprehend actions is a large part of intelligence?
We would assuredly not. To restate: an autistic man is frighteningly intelligent, yet has next to no comprehension of personal consequences.

And we would contend that you are implicitly making that equation in dismissing the mentally disabled as non-contributors to society. You asked what they could contribute, and when we gave a number of examples you asserted that such things (vide intelligent action) were not possible.

In fact, people who cannot comprehend their actions are inherently dangerous
We suggest the words "who cannot comprehend their actions" are redundant in that sentence. We are sure that the enthusiastic members of the DEFCON organisation can supply you with many examples.

and the Dominion believes such people need only prove their danger once before being sentenced to being jailed for the duration of their life. In the face of recovery, should such recovery occur, an early release is advised depending on the seriousness of the crime (it is only natural, a government would be more apprehensive in releasing a man who committed serious crimes even if this man had recovered from his mental illness).
We would suggest that said man has a greater chance of recovering if you actually treat him for his illness. Indeed, this is the approach we take to all crime. We find it not only beneficial to reoffence rates but also considerably less expensive than permanant incarceration. That is not to say that there are not people for whom hospitalization turns out to be for the rest of their life, merely that we do not assume so, and that even in the group of potential offenders that we are considering together they form the exception rather than the rule.

I was not aware of this practice as my nation (as you have undoubtedly guessed) denounces such practices. Even with my nation's discouragement (that is actually a real word), the Dominion's occupants are quite content with this system.
First, we are gladdened to note that despite previous comments, your government does in fact give social and cultural leads to its citizens. Just not many, apparently. We are also absolutely certain that many people will be delighted to hear of a nation in which builders' prices are fixed and known in advance. They would probably be less impressed with the inflexibility of the products, though.

Please take the whole of the fragment (haha) into consideration. "One does not have to produce, only want." When one does not produce, their "need" inevitably increases (it is actually rather strange to call it need, as they it is assumed they have the tools to do so--but only do not because they expect their need to spur the government to supply them). Therefore, their "want" is a want to gain something without working for it.
It is indeed rather strange to call it such, since it is a needless redefinition of "need", and we shall leave that particular straw man's bonfire well alone. We referred to that which a person requires for survival at an arbitrary but nationally agreed level of comfort, not the excess of his requirements over his available resources. That is a constant. Bearing that in mind, would you care to rephrase your argument?

The third clause: "that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does." In a system where you are expected to sacrifice to everyone else and you expect everyone else to sacrifice to you, you then do not feel entitled to your own wealth--everyone else is sacrificing for you, should you not do the same? And certainly, expecting others to sacrifice to you is the accepting of the unearned.
No, expecting others to sacrifice to you is demanding the unearned. That aside, we would endorse your restatement as a Good Thing, and an indication of why a co-operative society works much more reliably than you seem to think.

The issue between us philosophically would appear to be that you place personal entitlement upon a pedestal, and we set communal enrichment in that place instead. Each of us regards the other's choice with something akin to horrified fascination, which is why we suspect we will never come to any agreement. We personally can but hope that some day in the far future your citizenry will notice the dead end that they have sucked themselves into and act appropriately; you no doubt hope similarly of us.

In such a system, those who attempt to live by it are punished--in that they sacrifice as much as they can--and those who cheat it are rewarded: they sacrifice as little as possible, but yet everyone else is still expected to sacrifice to them.
We ignored this argument before because we assumed it was presented as a facile rewriting of reality, and we are not overly fond of straw men as we hope we have made plain thus far. Given that you appear sincere, however, we apologise for our earlier assumption. We will observe that a large part of the answer is that this is the wrong question.

Your statement of affairs understandably (given what we understand your world view to be) focuses on sacrifice as a transaction: others are expected to sacrifice to cheats, to use your terminology. Such is not the nature of sacrifice. One sacrifices for others, not to them, and sacrifices can take many forms, not all of which translate into something that would be recognised as an entitlement. We could, for example, sacrifice some of our time and sleep to enrich another's life through debating alternative philosophies -- as we have done for you and your predecessor. We could assist with the raising of a child (though frankly we'd rather not) so that its lone remaining parent could get some important work done.

We apologise for turning this into something of a formula, but it is an error to equate selflessness with stupidity. People do not sacrifice as much as they can, they sacrifice as much as helps.

Even from the transactional viewpoint, however, you fail to take into account that sacrifice is not a zero-sum game. There are no guarantees, as with everything in life, but the net effect of co-operative effort across a community appears to be greater than the sum of the individual sacrifices, even where freeloaders enter the equation.

Turning to the selfish society (though we find ourselves hard-pressed to use the term 'society' for such a collection of individuals), we would concur that selfish individuals are more predictable. It does also mean that an individual's actions will predictably benefit oneself only by happenstance. One can plan for such, but must beware of the individual who is working towards medium or long term maximization of his or her entitlement rather than immediate gratification, or one who has chosen to maximize the differential between his entitlement and yours. Doubtless there are other cases we have failed to recognise, but we think the point sufficiently made.

This is a description of a state of perpetual conflict. Such is inevitably wearing on individuals, and if envy enters the fray as it so often does it can become exceedingly dangerous. Hence, presumably, the unrelenting nature of your laws. This too is often not a zero-sum game when considered across a community, though we believe there is a marked tendency for the sum to be negative. Progress is made, please do not assume we mean otherwise, but it could be made so much faster if only people worked together. Some competition is a healthy thing; constant competition is not.

We hope this has adequately addressed the issues you raised. We shall attempt to restrain ourself to briefer answers in the future, but we thought it worth expanding upon the nature of our underlying philosophies. Since they are philosophical differences, we suspect that the chances of our coming to a concensus are slim.

We would assuredly not. To restate: an autistic man is frighteningly intelligent, yet has next to no comprehension of personal consequences.
Thank you for restating..?

And we would contend that you are implicitly making that equation in dismissing the mentally disabled as non-contributors to society. You asked what they could contribute, and when we gave a number of examples you asserted that such things (vide intelligent action) were not possible.
If the criminals are unable to comprehend or even control their actions (as we have been speaking on such people), these things are not possible.

We suggest the words "who cannot comprehend their actions" are redundant in that sentence.
I do not see how. Unless you say it is synonymous to inherently dangerous?

We are sure that the enthusiastic members of the DEFCON organisation can supply you with many examples.
And yet I see none.

We would suggest that said man has a greater chance of recovering if you actually treat him for his illness.
If the Dominion is to use its money to treat these criminals, what is the chance of recovery? To what point? How much will these men then be able to contribute to society? Will it be enough to cover the expenses needed to rehabilitate these men? With so many questions with such a wide range of possible answers with many leaning towards the negative spectrum, the Dominion declines to experiment with such a high likeliness of failure.

Indeed, this is the approach we take to all crime. We find it not only beneficial to reoffence rates but also considerably less expensive than permanant incarceration.
I assure you the death sentence is much cheaper.

That is not to say that there are not people for whom hospitalization turns out to be for the rest of their life, merely that we do not assume so, and that even in the group of potential offenders that we are considering together they form the exception rather than the rule.
If my rule does not provide for an exception, there is none. Surely you have divined that as my stance from our conversation. But let us not go there again, as we will then merely be recycling our arguments from before. :)

First, we are gladdened to note that despite previous comments, your government does in fact give social and cultural leads to its citizens. Just not many, apparently.
Let me clarify: I admit there are a few basic leads the Dominion gives the people. Since the establishment of the nation, certainly the general attitude regarding economics and other areas of life have been established by the Dominion. However, specific instances and companies are where the Dominion withdraws their leads. See the quotes below to refresh your memory (and confirm that the Dominion does not give leads to individual parties):

If the government does not give a lead to any structure, the lead of the government becomes a non-factor in how supportive they are.
No so. A lack of lead is still a lead, indeed a very dispiriting one.
It (the lack of a lead) is not a lead if the government does not extend one to any one party, even ones that are obviously favorable. Indeed, if it is still taken as a lead, after a period of time, the people will learn to ignore the government's advice (or "lead"/"lack of a lead") when it offers none.
See, my government does not give leads to individuals, but in attitudes, yes.

We are also absolutely certain that many people will be delighted to hear of a nation in which builders' prices are fixed and known in advance. They would probably be less impressed with the inflexibility of the products, though.
Excuse me? Have you completely gone off on a tangent? Builders?

However, if you are talking about the traders/merchants we were talking about earlier (I honestly cannot tell if you went off on a tangent or not), why would their prices be fixed and known in advance and why would their products be inflexible?

It is indeed rather strange to call it such, since it is a needless redefinition of "need", and we shall leave that particular straw man's bonfire well alone. We referred to that which a person requires for survival at an arbitrary but nationally agreed level of comfort, not the excess of his requirements over his available resources. That is a constant. Bearing that in mind, would you care to rephrase your argument?
No.

No, expecting others to sacrifice to you is demanding the unearned.
Oh! But that is the system that you described:

True, a selfless individual weakens themselves knowingly, but is strengthened by their selfless fellows in a manner that is more than simply additive. The selfish individual is strong by themselves, but is always by themselves.
So when one sacrifices for others, it is expected that everyone around them will sacrifice for them? What if one does not sacrifice? Is it still expected that others sacrifice to them? That, simply and respectfully put, is a rather silly system. When the individuals within a nation act completely on selfish reasons, it will prosper as a whole--even while that is not the goal of these individuals. When sacrifices enter the equation, it self-destructs. When the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that one does not have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does, your economy collapses.* An economy that depends on one's self-interest is much more stable than one that depends on people sacrificing to each other as you can depend on people to act for themselves much more than you can rely on people to sacrifice. (A bit redundant there, I am afraid).
And yet, you did not reject these words, instead, "drawing my attention to the italicized words."

The issue between us philosophically would appear to be that you place personal entitlement upon a pedestal, and we set communal enrichment in that place instead.
In other words, I am an extreme capitalist and you lean towards communism. How apt.

Each of us regards the other's choice with something akin to horrified fascination, which is why we suspect we will never come to any agreement.
Quite.

We personally can but hope that some day in the far future your citizenry will notice the dead end that they have sucked themselves into and act appropriately; you no doubt hope similarly of us.
I do not hope that your nation sees that they have led themselves into a dead end. Rather, I hope that the fouls systems of world will, by themselves, crash, leaving only the good. Evolution on a grand scale--ah! We will, undoubtedly, in time, see who is correct (whether it be you or I), so I do not seek to force your hand. I merely believe my view to be correct.

Your statement of affairs understandably (given what we understand your world view to be) focuses on sacrifice as a transaction: others are expected to sacrifice to cheats, to use your terminology. Such is not the nature of sacrifice.
Oh, no. Before we go off on another misunderstanding, see the above. I was describing the system of sacrifices as I thought *you* viewed it (it's all up there if you look). In fact, if I have not made it clear already, I do not view sacrifice as a transaction, but simply a act of self-destruction.

One sacrifices for others, not to them, and sacrifices can take many forms, not all of which translate into something that would be recognised as an entitlement. We could, for example, sacrifice some of our time and sleep to enrich another's life through debating alternative philosophies -- as we have done for you and your predecessor.
Oh, certainly that is not a sacrifice. If it were a sacrifice, you would not be here. See, it is not a sacrifice to give up something for another thing you value higher, and you obviously value debating higher than you value that amount of time and sleep. Whose life are you enriching again? Yours. Perhaps it is enriching mine in the process, but you do not debate in order to enrich my life--that is what I am doing. And I am certainly not doing it in order to enrich yours either. Certainly, if you believe otherwise, you would be blatantly lying to yourself.

We could assist with the raising of a child (though frankly we'd rather not) so that its lone remaining parent could get some important work done.
Now *that* is a sacrifice, and something you certainly should not do if you value this person's ability to get some work done more than you value your time and effort.

We apologise for turning this into something of a formula, but it is an error to equate selflessness with stupidity.
If it is wise to destroy oneself, by all means, do so.

People do not sacrifice as much as they can, they sacrifice as much as helps.
Perhaps we need to define sacrifice?

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is a sacrifice.*

There are no guarantees, as with everything in life, but the net effect of co-operative effort across a community appears to be greater than the sum of the individual sacrifices, even where freeloaders enter the equation.
Oh, but then it seems you are converting to my side of the argument (though you, undoubtedly, do not believe you are). Your system is one that works through selflessness--through sacrifices. Mine is one where men work purely with self-interest in mind and..(read on, I have clarified the idea of cooperative selfishness three quotes down).

It does also mean that an individual's actions will predictably benefit oneself only by happenstance. One can plan for such, but must beware of the individual who is working towards medium or long term maximization of his or her entitlement rather than immediate gratification, or one who has chosen to maximize the differential between his entitlement and yours. Doubtless there are other cases we have failed to recognise, but we think the point sufficiently made.
I do not. What is the point?

This is a description of a state of perpetual conflict. Such is inevitably wearing on individuals, and if envy enters the fray as it so often does it can become exceedingly dangerous. Hence, presumably, the unrelenting nature of your laws.
The only other belief in the Dominion other than that one operates for one's own good is that force is never to be a factor between two people. For those who do so are, as you have assumed, punished.

This too is often not a zero-sum game when considered across a community, though we believe there is a marked tendency for the sum to be negative. Progress is made, please do not assume we mean otherwise, but it could be made so much faster if only people worked together.
You misunderstand my system. Just because people work for their own benefit does not mean they do not cooperate. In a lab, scientists cooperate to research something astounding. But why? Each scientist is not thinking that he works so that the other man may receive that man's paycheck. He is thinking about his own paycheck, his own recognition, his own success. It is precisely because people are selfish that they would choose to work with others--to earn themselves the greatest sum in the least time.

Some competition is a healthy thing; constant competition is not.
And why not. What is competition? Merely two or more parties jockeying for sales among their buyers. One receives more sales by creating better products than the competition. Under constant competition, one can ensure that companies will constantly be advancing and constantly be offering the public the best available. In fact, to use an example from the Dominion, we believe in this enough to abolish all tariffs so that if foreign companies create better products, they would benefit as they should.

Would you, for example, hold down a company with a product better than the leading competition to reduce the competition? I sincerely hope the answer is "No."

We hope this has adequately addressed the issues you raised. We shall attempt to restrain ourself to briefer answers in the future, but we thought it worth expanding upon the nature of our underlying philosophies. Since they are philosophical differences, we suspect that the chances of our coming to a concensus are slim.
I must agree.

With Utmost Respect,
The Dominion

OOC: *Essence of this sentence largely derived and partially quoted from the distinguished author Ayn Rand. I do love her so (actually, my nation and its activity in the UN is highly influenced by her stances).

With respect to the Dominion, since there appear to be issues surrouding the following of the multiple threads of discussion we are creating, as well as the frequent redefinition of terms, we see no profit to you in continuing this discussion.

We would make but one parting remark: if you insist on using that definition of sacrifice, then we must reject the language of sacrifice as an adequate description of the selfless society, for reasons that a moment's thought should have already made obvious.

We wish your nation well.

We wish your nation well.
No you don't. You wish us dead and gone.

Fooled by no one,
The Dominion

Hi!

It is quite unfair to the mentally disabled. I think mentally disabled people can be given another chance. Some could be intelligent, too.

I do not see how. Unless you say it is synonymous to inherently dangerous?


And yet I see none.
You're misreading Gobbanium. What he meant was that people are inherently dangerous. The ability to comprehend actions doesn't change that a jot. His example of DEFCON is just that: proof that people are inherently dangerous.

I completely agree with the whole matter- i would asume it would increase the intelligence of our countries, due to less invalids inhabiting them, it also encourages people who may be un-inteligent strive to be educated- due to them not wanting to be executed. It could help our economy aswell, as there would be less incompetent workers.:sniper:

Since DEFCON was brought into the discussion-

I don't think there's any nation that's a member of DEFCON which holds that people themselves are inherently dangerous. But, our organisation's mission is international security, not social policy, so DEFCON really has nothing to do with this discussion.

Utri Bibbleputter
DEFCON Liason

I completely agree with the whole matter- i would asume it would increase the intelligence of our countries, due to less invalids inhabiting them, it also encourages people who may be un-inteligent strive to be educated- due to them not wanting to be executed. It could help our economy aswell, as there would be less incompetent workers.:sniper:

Can we execute this clown?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Since DEFCON was brought into the discussion-

I don't think there's any nation that's a member of DEFCON which holds that people themselves are inherently dangerous. But, our organisation's mission is international security, not social policy, so DEFCON really has nothing to do with this discussion.

Utri Bibbleputter
DEFCON Liason

Thank you, Mr. Bibbleputter. I'm not quite sure why DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON) got brought up in this debate, but, as you correctly noted, as an organisation, we have no interest in social policy.

Cordially,
Sheik Nottap bin Cluich
Cluichstani Defense Minister
Chairman, UN DEFCON

Mentally Disabled must be accountable for their actions to sustain a healthy society.

Morally, it may seem like a very good idea to argue that due to their disability, these people do not have the capacity to be responsible for their actions.

However, practically, these people shouldn't be immune to the law when they infringe on the rights of others.

Its the responsiblity of a society to protect everyone, not just those who are mentally handicapped.

If a mass murderer happens to be mentally disabled, is it fair to leave this threat to society immune to some laws. I think not.

Whether or not capital punishment is justifable is up to the laws of the member nations. This proposal seems to force the abolishment of capital punishment as a deterent.

It specifically singles out "execution" rather than all punishments.
By the authors argument, if the handicapped person isn't responsible for their actions, shouldn't they be immune to all punishments except for rehabilitation.

For these reasons, We, the people of Maple Fabreeze, STRONGLY OPPOSE this resolution.

The UN representatives of Androssia have officially invited those of Dagnus Reardinius to a comfortable dinner, in honor of their valiant stand for the truth and to provide a much needed break from the stress of constant debate against our unenlightened but respected fellow ambassadors.

Clearly, if a mentally retarded individual has committed a crime worthy of execution(which we would assume to be murder, rape, ect.) he is a menace to society and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Rehabilitation would be unprofitable, as the retarded individual has no control over his or her own actions and therefore cannot reform them. Androssia respectfully expresses its sentiment that it is better to insure that a murderer or rapist can never strike again, rather than risking a preventable reoccurence of the tragic crime.

If you are so worried about the mentally disabled committing crimes again, why not send them to us liberal nations?

Many of us would love to test out rehabiliation programs to help them out. You get them out of your hair. Exile from their homelands is a suitable punishment for their crimes, no? I'd be quite willing to accept at least some mentally disabled prisoners for a trial program to test out new medicaton that will be very useful to us. And if it turns out the programs fails, well, it's us that deal with the crimes the mentally disabled has done, and not you. And isn't that what law is all about...getting the criminals out of your hair?

Would that be a nice compromise?

I gratefully incline my head at the Ambassadors of Androssia, Maple Fabreeze, and their respective nations. It is good to see support.

If you are so worried about the mentally disabled committing crimes again, why not send them to us liberal nations?
Surely, if you have read my arguments, you would understand why I would rather execute them. What would deporting them do? Remove them from our countries. What would executing them do? Remove them from our countries. However, which one is cheaper? Executing them, certainly. If it is revealed that deportation is cheaper, perhaps we will proceed to that path.

I'd be quite willing to accept at least some mentally disabled prisoners for a trial program to test out new medicaton that will be very useful to us. And if it turns out the programs fails, well, it's us that deal with the crimes the mentally disabled has done, and not you.
Despite our (the Dominion's) lowering the mentally disabled to the status of animals, even we find this loathing (in fact, we discourage animal testing, though it is certainly not banned). Scientific testing made on human beings must be carried out only with the full consent of the test subject. When one is not in control of their actions nor comprehending them, they cannot express consent. Otherwise, they may be the victim of horrific experiments that will perhaps leave them worse than dead.

And isn't that what law is all about...getting the criminals out of your hair?
A very subtle accusation, sir.

Would that be a nice compromise?
Only if I gained more from deporting them than from executing them.

Once again, thanks to those who have expressed support.

Respectfully,
The Dominion

No you don't. You wish us dead and gone.

With respect to the honoured ambassador, we said nothing about himself or his government.

With respect to the honoured ambassador, we said nothing about himself or his government.
Despite our formal approach, the Dominion is capable of humour. See: haha.

The Dominion

If you are so worried about the mentally disabled committing crimes again, why not send them to us liberal nations?

Many of us would love to test out rehabiliation programs to help them out. You get them out of your hair. Exile from their homelands is a suitable punishment for their crimes, no? I'd be quite willing to accept at least some mentally disabled prisoners for a trial program to test out new medicaton that will be very useful to us. And if it turns out the programs fails, well, it's us that deal with the crimes the mentally disabled has done, and not you. And isn't that what law is all about...getting the criminals out of your hair?

Would that be a nice compromise?

If SilentScope001 would be willing to handle all necesssary expenditures for this experiment and accept full responsibility for dealing with the criminals if the project should fail, perhaps we could negotiate an agreement.

If SilentScope001 would be willing to handle all necesssary expenditures for this experiment and accept full responsibility for dealing with the criminals if the project should fail, perhaps we could negotiate an agreement.
The companionship of the state of Androssia is most delightful--what a dignified solution! The Dominion is willing to enter into such an agreement with SilentScope and other nations who are willing to do so as well. However, it must be noted that rarely does the Dominion encounter the combination of a criminal worthy of execution and a man mentally disabled to the point of being unable to comprehend/control actions. Perhaps we shall just revise the laws to that all upper-moderate and above punishments are revised to deportation (into the ocean, if no one is willing to accept criminals, though the liberals seem quite enthusiastic).

The Dominion

Er...maybe the offer wasn't such a good idea after all...you know, due to an economic depression, internal crises, etc.

It is a fine idea, but I don't think our nation would be able to accept the burden. Now that I think about it, few nations would accept the burden...

Fine, you win. Let each nation decide what they want to do...

(OOC: I thought about accepting it, but I realize that it isn't exactly a sane policy. While my nation is not really sane at times [we just gave citizenship to bacterium], this is a more lucid moment.

If this resolution does pass, I can help find loopholes to allow you to execute people, if you so desire. That would be OOC help though.)

OOC: That's quite alright. The Dominion will probably just ship them off to some island somewhere, kind of like Australia. Actually, considering the Dominion's policies, we will probably just tell them to swim there. (That is, assuming this silly proposal is passed. Otherwise, we will just continue to execute them).

(OOC: Glad to see you handled your little issue. :)

Personally, IC, my character would be disgusted, but OOCly, I enjoyed reading your nation's viewpoints. I doubt they are your own, but even if they are, they still are fun to read.)

OOC: Actually, yes. When operating with other human beings, I try to adhere as closely as these Objectivist principles as possible (especially the selfishness and earn/sacrifice principles I presented, which are actually pretty innate for me).

The Dominion will probably just ship them off to some island somewhere, kind of like Australia.

There is no such place. Australia is unique. We made Max.