NationStates Jolt Archive

Please feel free to give helpful criticim!
I submitted this proposal last Friday and got 84 approvals for it. It missed the quorum by 19. I realize there may have been some flaws in it, and if they were fixed it is highly likely it would have come to vote. So now I'm posting an updated version of the Universal Bill of Rights II, so that it will be better next time I submit it.

This document does not amend or repeal any part of the Universal Bill of Rights. References made to the Universal Bill of Rights are made specifically to the thought process and virtues involved in making the Universal Bill of Rights. The Universal Bill of Rights II is fully capable of standing alone.

RECOGNIZING that Resolution #26 Universal Bill of Rights protected many fundamental rights of the population, also
IN KEEPING with the spirit of the Universal Bill of Rights, it is our duty to seek to protect the rights of every member of the population, including those rights not conceived in the Universal Bill of Rights,
HEREBY we are resolved to enact into law the Universal Bill of Rights II, for the purpose of protecting the basic rights of the population.

We, the members of the United Nations, recognize the following rights to which all of the population is entitled, and these Articles shall take precedence in all member nations, with the exception of a nation’s constitution better protecting these rights than what is mentioned here:

Article I: All of the population has the right to Life. This right shall not be hindered by the government, and all parties acting to deny others this right without the competent consent of said other must be tried. This right may be taken should a member of the population have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, be an enemy in war, be aborted, or, in full competency, wish for euthanasia.

Article II: All of the population has the right to Privacy. No member of the population shall be unreasonably searched, defining a reasonable search as being permitted by a court of law by issued document and confined strictly to what the court deems satisfactory in the issued document.

Article III: All rights reasonably derived from aforementioned rights shall be treated as if listed directly among the Articles of this document, and shall not be disparaged by the government.

We hereby ratify the Universal Bill of Rights II

All human beings have the right to Life.

i actually dont know the UN's stance on abortion currently. if its pro-choice, youd have to repeal that before writing this.

All human beings have the right to Privacy.

hasnt this already been given?

All human beings have the right to Protection Against Unreasonable Fines. Said fines include but are not limited to taxation

yeah, in a game where many nations have a 100% income tax....... im pretty sure any definition of excesive would include literally all of a citizens income.

All human beings All human beings All human beings

this is the part i like. Decapodians arent human, therefore we'd be exempt from every part of this.

All rights reasonably derived from aforementioned rights shall be treated

wait....... what? im not sure what rights reasonably derived means...... and im pretty sure in a bill of rights the point is to declare what rights one has, not allow them to be derived..... what rights are you talking about?

Wait...84?!

Alright, I'm going to have to assist you then, because it is rather likely that you might get this passed. You might have to TG every single UN delegate, but I think you got the determination.

I pre-apologize for being a bit too blunt.

<preamble>

The definition of a human being may vary. For the purposes of this document, a human being is, at minimum, a Homo sapien viable outside the womb, allowing for the removal of a fetus’ rights before twenty weeks after conception. It is also acceptable to define a human being as beginning at conception and containing a Homo sapien genome.

<preamble>


Take that definition out. Any reaonable person would know what a human being is. And banning an abortion in the third termister, egad. You know how many pro-choicers are going to scream?

Article I: All human beings have the right to Life. This right shall not be hindered by the government, and all parties acting to deny others this right without the competent consent of said other must be tried. This right may be taken should a person have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, be an enemy in war, or, in full competency, wish for euthanasia

Uh.

1) The NSUN has adopted the Abortion Legality Convention (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-browser/?resolution=147). The resolution allows for nations to choose to legalize or ban abortion. If you take out that definiton about 'life', I think you'd be fine.

2) If I understand correctly, once you get rid of the abortion clause...erm. All you have done is ban murder. Does the NSUN really need to do that? I thought most nations banned murder.

Article II: All human beings have the right to Privacy. No person shall be unreasonably searched, defining a reasonable search as being permitted by a court of law by issued document and confined strictly to what the court deems satisfactory in the issued document.

It is already duplicated by Stop privacy intrusion (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-browser/?resolution=10). Even down to the "you have to get a court's premission to decide".

Article III: All human beings have the right to Protection Against Unreasonable Fines. Said fines include but are not limited to taxation, penalties for violations of the law, and lawsuits.

Represenation in taxation (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-browser/?resolution=128) allows for nations to decide taxation for themselves. Nations can decide their own Penatlties for violations of law is and our lawsuits judgements due to Fair Sentencing Act (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-browser/?resolution=180).

The definition of a human being may vary. For the purposes of this document, a human being is, at minimum, a Homo sapien viable outside the womb, allowing for the removal of a fetus’ rights before twenty weeks after conception. It is also acceptable to define a human being as beginning at conception and containing a Homo sapien genome.
Why are you specifically limiting these rights to homo sapiens? There are many nations in the UN which are made up partly, or even entirely, of non-human populations.

Article I: All human beings have the right to Life. This right shall not be hindered by the government, and all parties acting to deny others this right without the competent consent of said other must be tried. This right may be taken should a person have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, be an enemy in war, or, in full competency, wish for euthanasia.
This, combined with your definition of "human being", would seem to contradict Abortion Legality Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737905&postcount=148). UN nations are free to determine their own policies concerning abortion.

Article III: All human beings have the right to Protection Against Unreasonable Fines. Said fines include but are not limited to taxation, penalties for violations of the law, and lawsuits.
This contradicts Fair Sentencing Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181). UN nations are free to determine the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions.

I haven't done a thorough analysis of the implications of Articles II and IV, but they might also either contradict or duplicate existing UN law. I commented on I and III because they just jumped out at me.

A better approach might be to repeal the original Universal Bill of Rights and replace it with improved legislation.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

edit: SilentScope beat me to it. *shakes fist at faster typer*

Why are you specifically limiting these rights to homo sapiens? There are many nations in the UN which are made up partly, or even entirely, of non-human populations.

Wolfgang, Kyle, and IX wave for effect at the statement.

Thanks for all the suggestions. They're very helpful, and I appreciate the interest you've taken in this cause.

Decapod Ten:

"i actually dont know the UN's stance on abortion currently. if its pro-choice, youd have to repeal that before writing this."

Near the beginning of this proposal, I said that the definition of a human being may vary. All human beings have the right to life, but whether a human being begins at conception or begins when he/she is viable outside the womb is up to the nation. This doesn't violate the Abortion Legality Convention.

"hasnt this already been given?"

No, security from unreasonable searches and seizures has not yet been given. The resolution Stop Privacy Intrusion refers only to protecting communications.

"yeah, in a game where many nations have a 100% income tax....... im pretty sure any definition of excesive would include literally all of a citizens income."

You're right, I should take out the unreasonable taxes part.

"wait....... what? im not sure what rights reasonably derived means...... and im pretty sure in a bill of rights the point is to declare what rights one has, not allow them to be derived..... what rights are you talking about?"

I'm just saying if a situation arises where a clear breech of human rights is occuring, use common sense and figure it out. E.g. if we had a right saying that no one can be tortured, it's reasonable to conclude that we can't whip people either. We don't have to have laws that say Do not do this:
Whip people
Cut off extremities
Break people's bones
etc.

We could just say don't torture people.

SilentScope:

"Take that definition out. Any reaonable person would know what a human being is. And banning an abortion in the third termister, egad. You know how many pro-choicers are going to scream?"

You would be surprised how many people telegrammed me demanding a definition. I thought that any reasonable person would know the definition of a human being as well.

And as for the abortion thing, if the child was viable outside the womb, why not just have a C section instead? It's not like it's any riskier.

"I thought most nations banned murder."

Exactly. Only most of them did. What about all the rest?

"It is already duplicated by Stop privacy intrusion. Even down to the "you have to get a court's premission to decide"."

Actually, if you read Stop Privacy Intrusion, it only protects the rights of privacy in communication. My article protects rights of privacy against search and seizure.

"Represenation in taxation allows for nations to decide taxation for themselves. Nations can decide their own Penatlties for violations of law is and our lawsuits judgements due to Fair Sentencing Act."

Unfortunately you're right. If nations want to they could castrate people for J walking. I'll have to eliminate that article. I wish someone would repeal that resolution...

Iron Felix:

"This, combined with your definition of "human being", would seem to contradict Abortion Legality Convention. UN nations are free to determine their own policies concerning abortion"

I give nations the right to choose their definition of a human being. If they choose that he/she is a human at conception then abortion would be illegal. If they choose that he/she is a human at viability outside the womb then abortion would be legal.

"A better approach might be to repeal the original Universal Bill of Rights and replace it with improved legislation."

I have no problem with the Universal Bill of Rights. I do have a problem with the Fair Sentencing Act that mandates the right of nations to give unfair sentences! Am I the only one who finds that stupid?

Am I the only one who finds that stupid?

i kinda like judicial sovereignity, and find it the basis of states, particularly in this game. A libertarian police state lets you do anything except criticize the gov, a psychotic dictatorship allows you only to praise the gov. i dont see how this could happen without judicial sovereignity.

Exactly. Only most of them did. What about all the rest? ... I give nations the right to choose their definition of a human being.

ok, so how do you make murder illegal then? if i can define a human as a Tyrannnasaurus Rex, people can kill anybody they want.

"ok, so how do you make murder illegal then? if i can define a human as a Tyrannnasaurus Rex, people can kill anybody they want. "

Anybody they want except for the 'Tyrannnasaurus' Rex with 3 n's in its name.

But on the serious side, I didn't give people the option to define a human being any way they want. I said that a human being begins as a Homo sapien viable outside the womb, but it's also okay to say that a human being begins before that.

You would be surprised how many people telegrammed me demanding a definition. I thought that any reasonable person would know the definition of a human being as well.

Eh. Still rather you take it out.

And as for the abortion thing, if the child was viable outside the womb, why not just have a C section instead? It's not like it's any riskier.

The only way I can see in keeping a ban on abortion is to just go and claim: "If a child is viable outside of the womb, then it is not abortion, it is murder." Which I believe you are doing. But I still don't exactly think that's legal, and anyway, being a hard Pro-Choicer, I'm going to have to AGAINST. I want the right to abort, even up to the second before a child get born.

Exactly. Only most of them did. What about all the rest?

They must have legalized murder for good reasoning. Duelling, for example. Or maybe they love cannablism, and would be rather upset about it being taken away. Or some equally inane reason. Frankly, I'd rather not deal with them. If they're running their country insane, then likely enough, their people are insane, and I think the NSUN shouldn't babysit them, and instead focus on ruling the more 'saner' nations, you know, the one who don't castrate jaywalkers.

Actually, if you read Stop Privacy Intrusion, it only protects the rights of privacy in communication. My article protects rights of privacy against search and seizure.

Ah, okay then.

Another objection, however, is that both Stop Privacy Intrusion, and Article II require for the Courts to decide if it is okay to intrude on privacy. But, who decide who make up the Courts? The Government. The Courts easily rule in favor of the government, and bam, privacy get intruded. So, well, I don't see either resolution as effective as many people claim they are.

I give nations the right to choose their definition of a human being. If they choose that he/she is a human at conception then abortion would be illegal. If they choose that he/she is a human at viability outside the womb then abortion would be legal.

The way to let nations choose their own definitions is to basically take your definiton of 'human being' out of the resolution. That way, nations will be forced to decide for themselves what 'human being' means.

But, and this is a big but, you are disrespecting the right of other sapient species in the process, by ignoring them. The non-humans are somewhat angry that their rights are not protected.

I do have a problem with the Fair Sentencing Act that mandates the right of nations to give unfair sentences! Am I the only one who finds that stupid?

I find FSA fine. Because what is the definition of 'unfair sentences'? I mean, what if some Death Penatly Advocates go and force us to all use the death penatly? Or what if some person try to ban the death penatly? FSA exist for a good reason, and that is to allow the NSUN to focus on the things that we feel are important: Making the world a better place instead of tearing it up into obilvion with endless and pointless debates.
---Dr. Bob

"The only way I can see in keeping a ban on abortion is to just go and claim: "If a child is viable outside of the womb, then it is not abortion, it is murder." Which I believe you are doing. But I still don't exactly think that's legal, and anyway, being a hard Pro-Choicer, I'm going to have to AGAINST. I want the right to abort, even up to the second before a child get born."

Why stop at birth? How about we give people the right to kill their children up until age 18?


"They must have legalized murder for good reasoning. Duelling, for example. Or maybe they love cannablism, and would be rather upset about it being taken away. Or some equally inane reason. Frankly, I'd rather not deal with them. If they're running their country insane, then likely enough, their people are insane, and I think the NSUN shouldn't babysit them, and instead focus on ruling the more 'saner' nations, you know, the one who don't castrate jaywalkers"

We can't only make rules apply to the people who are already following them, instead of making the entire world a better place. That makes no sense. We can't just ignore a problem, we have to face it.

"Another objection, however, is that both Stop Privacy Intrusion, and Article II require for the Courts to decide if it is okay to intrude on privacy. But, who decide who make up the Courts? The Government. The Courts easily rule in favor of the government, and bam, privacy get intruded. So, well, I don't see either resolution as effective as many people claim they are"

But that's assuming that the government is some giant unified dictatorship. Most governments have checks and balances. That's why the legislative branch has the power to override the executive in situations and the judiciary branch has the power to override the legislative branch and things like that. The courts don't exactly conform to every whim of the government.

"The way to let nations choose their own definitions is to basically take your definiton of 'human being' out of the resolution. That way, nations will be forced to decide for themselves what 'human being' means."

If we did that nations could define human beings as Tyrannosaurs Rex or something like that.

Why stop at birth? How about we give people the right to kill their children up until age 18?

I think that if your child is still gestating at age 18, you're probably doing something substantially wrong.

"The way to let nations choose their own definitions is to basically take your definiton of 'human being' out of the resolution. That way, nations will be forced to decide for themselves what 'human being' means."

If we did that nations could define human beings as Tyrannosaurs Rex or something like that.

"No, no. 'Human' being precludes that. 'Human' is a reference to Homo sapiens. It's not a variable. 'Citizens' or 'persons' or 'sapients' or something like that are variables. Referring to human beings alone is unacceptable. We should make it a common practice to remove such language from all future legislation."

We believe that the issues that are plaguing the honoured ambassador concerning this proposal all stem from one simple fact, it is much too broad. The proposal attempts to give a number of ill-defined rights to a regretably too well-defined cross-section of the populace, and may we say that being technically not homo sapiens ourself that we find the definition wholly unacceptable. Such a broad brush approach will either contradict or replicate whole existing resolutions, as has been noted, or give rise to undesirable anomalies.

Consider for example the caveats and codacils involved in the now-repealed resolution Individual Self-Determination, which dealt primarily with euthanasia. All those conditions, deemed necessary then and now, are dismissed by the blanket permission given as an off-hand matter in a few words at the end of a phrase.

As a statement of principles, this proposal is a fine creation. As law, it is unredeemable.

Unredeemable is a strong word. It sounds like I have to do penance because this was some haneous crime, or rather that any penance would be unacceptable.

Anyway, fine, I'm going to change it to "All of the population," but leave the definition up to the nation, how's that?

Small beauty remark: I believe it should be 'All (of the population) have', in stead of 'All (of the population) has'. either that or my grammatical knowledge is failing me today.

Unredeemable is a strong word. It sounds like I have to do penance because this was some haneous crime, or rather that any penance would be unacceptable.

Anyway, fine, I'm going to change it to "All of the population," but leave the definition up to the nation, how's that?

Given the fixation on detail at the expense of the remaining general points, we don't think 'unredeemable' is at all an overly strong word. The proposal remains too broad.

What would you propose I do then? What should I change to make it more specific?

What is your Category and Strength?

We recommend throwing it away, and addressing individual elements -- individual rights, if you prefer -- at the level of detail which they need to properly define where one individual's rights become subordinate to another's or to those of a group. It should not escape your notice that it has taken two resolutions to deal with the issues surrounding the abolition of slavery, and even then some peripheral issues remain to be ironed out.

I fully support this as it gives freedom to our citizens.
Regards
Sir Jack Straw
Minister in TheElitists for the UN
ConservativeRepublicans Delegate.

Basically you're telling me to scrap the whole proposal. What do you mean by rights on the individual level? I think an individual's right not to be unreasonably searched or not to be killed is pretty personal...

Unredeemable is a strong word. It sounds like I have to do penance because this was some haneous crime, or rather that any penance would be unacceptable.

Anyway, fine, I'm going to change it to "All of the population," but leave the definition up to the nation, how's that?


I think it's a constructive policy that must be implemented in all member states for the human good.It's not so imposing and restrictive ,too.

Regards
Jack Straw
Perm UN Ambassodor
ConservativeRepublicans

I think an individual's right not to be unreasonably searched or not to be killed is pretty personal...

i agree with illegally searched. im confused by the murder thing. are you then going to subsequently produce proposals outlawing rape, theft, assault, etc. etc. etc.?

Good point. Fortunately we have the first Universal Bill of Rights to protect those.

"Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment."

"Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law."

But the theft thing is interesting. Maybe I could make a right to Retain Property...

touche good sir. you took that which was obviously the beginning of a list of crimes all nations outlaw and took it as the beginning of a new proposal to ensure rights that in no way need to be secured. in addition, could you write one for right to breathe oxygen? the right for solid objects not to exist in the same space as me? the right to remain at rest unless a force acts upon me, and of course the converse, the right to remain moving unless a force acts upon me? Oh God! Im forgetting that most sacred right that i can transform matter into enegry! Thank you, youve given me new hope that a bunch of rights i take for granted, because they are flat out obvious, will be protected.

or perhaps "Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment." does not define "torture", "creul and unusual" or "inhuman". therefore, my nation can define it as anything i friggin want, (and though we Decapodians are devoutly opposed to it) which could include rape. The resolution provides no enforcement mechanism, no committee to define any word in the resolution, and the resolution actually doesnt DO anything........... wow...... im about to go write a suggestion of repeal........

furthermore, it is against marxism to have property. Decapod Ten, among other nations, believes it is acceptable to be marxist. I dont think that property rights should be secured by the UN.

What is your Category and Strength?

This was not an idle question from a random player. This is a UN Mod asking "why shouldn't I delete this outright?"

Decapod Ten

First of all, chill out. I'm not attacking you, I'm not trying to be mean, you're taking this whole thing way too far.

"you took that which was obviously the beginning of a list of crimes all nations outlaw and took it as the beginning of a new proposal to ensure rights that in no way need to be secured"

Really, you think a person's right not to be killed doesn't need to be secured? Do you endorse murder in your nation?

"that most sacred right that i can transform matter into enegry"

I was never good in physics, but I seem to remember that only nuclear reactions can change matter into energy...

"does not define "torture", "creul and unusual" or "inhuman""

Get a dictionary.

"therefore, my nation can define it as anything i friggin want"

Actually, no, words do have meanings, you can't change the meaning of them just because you feel like it.

"The resolution provides no enforcement mechanism"

I don't know if you read the rule about not having an international police force. You should. This is an online game. You might as well repeal every single resolution that's ever been passed because we have no police force and therefore no way of enforcing rules.

"he resolution actually doesnt DO anything"

Of course not. It's a game. This is for entertainment. This is not real life and not anything you need to be using all caps for. It's like you're screaming at me or something...

"I dont think that property rights should be secured by the UN."

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you just say in your last post that we need to stop theft and protect property?

This was not an idle question from a random player. This is a UN Mod asking "why shouldn't I delete this outright?"

Sorry about that. I must have overlooked it. Human Rights, Strong

Basically you're telling me to scrap the whole proposal. What do you mean by rights on the individual level? I think an individual's right not to be unreasonably searched or not to be killed is pretty personal...

We apologise for the evident confusion caused by our use of the word "individual" in two different senses. We said nothing about "rights on the individual level".

What we were suggesting was that you take one right at a time and examine it in detail. What are the conflicts inherent in the concept? What exceptions might be reasonable? Where do the rights of one person overlap with the same rights of another person? Without this kind of consideration and detail, your proposal becomes pretty and possibly very dangerous words.

Take for example the apparently unarguable right not to be killed. As it stands, this would be flatly illegal; the Fair Sentencing Act says that the UN cannot prevent nations from using Capital Punishment if they so choose, so in specific cases you cannot stop a government (through the courts) from killing someone.

Ignoring that obstacle for the moment, consider soldiers. The right not to be killed sits ill with war, which suggests straight away that such a blanket right is going to be extremely problematic.

More knottily, what of self-defence? Someone who kills an attacker in self-defence has breached the same right as their would-be murderer would have had they been successful. Clearly the cases aren't the same, but in the eyes of the simple-minded resolution they would be identical.

These are merely a few examples of complications that we can toss off the top of our head (OOC: at 3am!). We believe that you need to seriously consider the implications of the rights you are proposing, and most especially the "corner cases" that would otherwise cause perverse results.

Really, you think a person's right not to be killed doesn't need to be secured? Do you endorse murder in your nation?

no. i dont think it should be secured by the UN. i think if the UN begins writing base legislation for laws it wont end until we have 30 thousand resolutions. And, actually, today i watched an episode and it turns out that we have a tradition of Clawblach which is a ritual fighting to the death over grievances and whether or not abbreviations count in scrabble (THEY DONT!) and in many nations that would be murder.

I was never good in physics, but I seem to remember that only nuclear reactions can change matter into energy...

many chemical reactions transform matter into energy. for example, digestion, and fire.

Get a dictionary.

torture, v. to insufficiently support one's nation.

who's to say your definition, or webster's is better than mine? now, an easy way is to have a UN committe do it, and nobody can argue with the mystical beings. also inhuman is bad because we Decapodians arent human.

Actually, no, words do have meanings, you can't change the meaning of them just because you feel like it.

so, here's my favorite story to denote that words can be manipulated past all meaning. Supreme Court of the United States of America, in its first ruling on Brown v. Board demanded integration "with all deliberate speed" now, look up every word if you like, that still doesnt mean anything. the case came up again, because three (i think it was 3) years later, nothing had changed. then they ruled that schools must be integrated in two years. that brought about change. the south, as states, were free to interpret the language for their own advantage. Decapod Ten, as a state, is also free to do so.

I don't know if you read the rule about not having an international police force. You should. This is an online game. You might as well repeal every single resolution that's ever been passed because we have no police force and therefore no way of enforcing rules.

wrong. i mean just wrong. ill quote #227, Clause 6, Subclauses F, G, and H. ill point out that the Eon Convention on Genocide, # 83, Article 2, Section 3. and then im going to stop, because my buzz is gone and i want to sleep. but there are enforcement mechanisms other than police. i assume you follow laws not simply because youre afraid you'll be shot otherwise.

Of course not. It's a game. This is for entertainment. This is not real life and not anything you need to be using all caps for

first, i used 11 capital letters in that message. far below what would grammatically be required. secondly, im not yelling at you, im actually sitting in my room watching sportscenter and typing very quietly. third, i miswrote, touche, it doenst ENFORCE anything (i also dont like pressing the italics button). what's the point of writing a resolution that doesnt make positive change? they just get in the way of better legislation (see the multiple abolitons of slavery).

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you just say in your last post that we need to stop theft and protect property?

nope. i asked you "are you then going to subsequently produce proposals outlawing rape, theft, assault, etc. etc. etc.?" i was merely pointing out that there are no provisions in UN resolutions to ban theft. apparently i was mistaken by using rape, should have used arson.

i think for some reason we're getting off topic though. i was trying to illustrate how there are laws (murder, arson, assault) that must be left up to nations lest we have a 10000 page bureaucracy. i was also trying to illustrate how your proposal (and the original universol bill of rights) lacks an enforcement mechanism (and ive provided 2 examples). i was also trying to illustrate that leaving definitions of a key term up to a nation can lead to total meaninglessness of a resolution. if ibe failed at any of these, please let me know and ill try to help less terribly.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the bureaucracy.

Agregorn is against needless laws, even if other nations see them as important. Many of the basic unalienable rights are determined by the sovereignty of the nation that upholds and enforces them. The problem with unalienable rights is the basis on subjectivity of social norms.

For example, Universal Suffrage could be considered unalienable by some, but by one of our allies it is considered a privilege allowed only to property owners and those born into the upper class. Similarly, we believe that only those that own a business have any business running a nation, as one needs to demonstrate they can successfully walk before they try to run. I know for a fact many UN nations we are amicable towards would disagree with this point, yet I would not want to impose our logical view on their life, nor would I expect their irrational, yet functional way of life to be imposed on us.

Again, Universal Suffrage is just an example. The same can be applied to the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, a new car, firearms, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, a guaranteed spouse, or running water. Indeed, a nation should choose how to be great based on these basic rights, and by having the UN decide otherwise we would be ceasing to be an organization of diverse peoples, and instead become an assimilated collective. We would rather die than give up our freedom to be us. I am pleased to know that many of you in the UN would agree.

Every country has it's only values that it considers core to it's existence, and as such a single bill of rights, apart from a very basic one (which I don't feel this is), would naturally undermine a nation's sovereignty and culture. For example, the Cobdenian constitution clearly states that one has the right to wear a sola pith helmet without being laughed at, that it is every Cobdenian's duty to prevent the looming approach of Marxist-Leninism, and that "sound's like the bugger deserved it to me" is a viable verdict in a murder case. Clearly, such a system, whilst perfect for Cobdenia, is somewhat inappropriate in other countries. As is this.

You could make that same argument against every single resolution that's ever been passed