NationStates Jolt Archive

For the Expansion of Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Blog Waters

Description: WHEREAS it is a well-noted flaw of democracy that certain social classes and cultures in the minority can face undue hardship, unfair treatment and exclusion from participation in government; and

WHEREAS the wholesale exclusion of any individual is fundamentally contrary to a free and democratic society -- and disparate oppression is equally contrary in a despotic or totalitarian society -- regardless of that party's religion, creed, race, gender, disability, existence, mortality or dining habits; and

RECOGNIZING that the Nation States UN is a complex multiverse composed of vastly diverse nations, many with differing cultures, citizenships and even realities; and

RECOGNIZING that emigration occurs naturally, spreading citizens from various realities throughout the entire multiverse;

SEEKING to expand protections offered to citizens traditionally defined as “human” to equally-deserving citizens of various origins who have a similar stake in nations' governments;

RECOGNIZING that with these freedom come the full responsibilities of citizens and, as such, violation of the laws of any nation are equally enforceable upon all subclasses, provided such laws do not unduly deny equal rights; and

THEREFORE, the UN seeks to clearly define “person” as used in the laws of this organization to mean any self-aware being (organic, robot, energy-based or otherwise) intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access;

AS SUCH, resolutions shall be interpreted to include all covered by this definition in their protections or limitations.

Respected colleagues of the NSUN,

This proposal evolved from the original proposal to recognize vampire rights. We saw a need to deliver rights to those who were created in alternate realities, particularly as they immigrate as they are legally capable of doing between nations.

Thank you for your consideration.

We would also like to acknowledge the kind assistance in drafting this petition provided by Decapod Ten, Aoi Kiru Usagi Minzoku, Byrnsjing, Beaucalsradt, Catawaba, SilentScope Embassy, UN-Related Affairs, Iron Felix, Jey, Tired Goblins, Regular squirrels, Spheron One, Cavirra, Krimsonika, Mikitivity, The Raven Lord, The Popotan, and Gobbannium.

(From the previous thread):
I agree. Also, I personally feel that data alone cannot constitute a being, rather it would be a record of a being. However, if evidence was presented of such a being, I would personally support any petition the UN to expand our definition to suitably allow for their participation.Respected representative of Blog Waters, as I have said before, such a being based entirely on data would likely face problems of rights if it is not explicitly stated here.

They are not organic, as I'm sure no one will say, they are not robotic and their essence is not based upon energy any more than you or I are based on energy. We use it, but it is not what we are based around. It then leaves it to the last criteria, otherwise, which is quite vague and might very well be constued to be only listed to be of those being who are combinations of the previous three, such as a cyborg or life-like android.

It is with such fore-sight that I implore the representatives to make certain such a thing would not happen by simply adding digitally-based beings to that list.

(From the previous thread):
Respected representative of Blog Waters, as I have said before, such a being based entirely on data would likely face problems of rights if it is not explicitly stated here.

They are not organic, as I'm sure no one will say, they are not robotic and their essence is not based upon energy any more than you or I are based on energy. We use it, but it is not what we are based around. It then leaves it to the last criteria, otherwise, which is quite vague and might very well be constued to be only listed to be of those being who are combinations of the previous three, such as a cyborg or life-like android.

It is with such fore-sight that I implore the representatives to make certain such a thing would not happen by simply adding digitally-based beings to that list.

Popotan, I am confident that a data-based being would be covered by the "otherwise" category included in the proposal.

I am less confident that data-based beings can exercise free thought, and therefore the only restriction in my interpretation of this proposal would be that they are incapable of participating in government activities independently even when given adequate access. However, this is a debate that could not be settled with my limited understanding of these - to my knowledge - theoretical beings.

Perhaps if you could produce an example of a digital being, we could more appropriately address the issue.

Popotan, I am confident that a data-based being would be covered by the "otherwise" category included in the proposal.

I am less confident that data-based beings can exercise free thought, and therefore the only restriction in my interpretation of this proposal would be that they are incapable of participating in government activities independently even when given adequate access. However, this is a debate that could not be settled with my limited understanding of these - to my knowledge - theoretical beings.Having quite a bit of background in the studies of philosophy and religion I can assure you that humans are just the same. We are made up of ultimately chemical and electrical structures and responses that could be simulated in a suitably complex data stream.
Perhaps if you could produce an example of a digital being, we could more appropriately address the issue.
(OOC: The following is another nation I have but because of Jennifer gov rules cannot be part of the UN)

My esteemed representative of Blog Waters The Holy Empire of Shining Darkness (http://www.nationstates.net/shining_darkness) does have such a creature I note. For those not familiar with a 9-tailed fox, they are a (fantastical) speicies who are intelligent and cunning. Normally they would be under energy-based creatures, but a digitial version is not an energy based creature. Should such a nation enter the Unitied Nations the right's of such a creature which is sentient and highly intelligent and certainly capable of ruling a society, as many folklore stories tell us, would be denied such rights.

Having quite a bit of background in the studies of philosophy and religion I can assure you that humans are just the same. We are made up of ultimately chemical and electrical structures and responses that could be simulated in a suitably complex data stream.

(OOC: The following is another nation I have but because of Jennifer gov rules cannot be part of the UN)

My esteemed representative of Blog Waters The Holy Empire of Shining Darkness (http://www.nationstates.net/shining_darkness) does have such a creature I note. For those not familiar with a 9-tailed fox, they are a (fantastical) speicies who are intelligent and cunning. Normally they would be under energy-based creatures, but a digitial version is not an energy based creature. Should such a nation enter the Unitied Nations the right's of such a creature which is sentient and highly intelligent and certainly capable of ruling a society, as many folklore stories tell us, would be denied such rights.

May the kind representative of Popotan please pardon the unusual thickness of my skull, as I still fail to see how the data alone is a being and not a copy of being. I am by no means an expert, but my understanding is that data itself is static, whereas a "being" is composed of changing data. If the data composing the 9-tailed fox changes - for instance, if it is a part of a data stream - then it must be imbued with some form of energy (albeit, possibly an energy form that we do not yet recognize or understand).

Am I incorrect? If so, please suggest some language that would help my proposal.

Let me ask the representative of Blog Waters, is your DNA imbued with energy by it's mere existence? For that is the best comparison to the data of such a creature, being or whatever you want to call it I am claiming as it's fundamental building blocks.

Thus the data is a foundation. It is true, somewhere, some form of energy needs to be used, to turn the data into a being, but that is not an energy being. I mean, would you, representative, call yourself an energy being? If you would, I must say you might be about the only one I know who would.

You are of course free to classify yourself as such, but alas, I doubt many would recognize that claim. They would likely classify you as organic, being a human.

Let me ask the representative of Blog Waters, is your DNA imbued with energy by it's mere existence? For that is the best comparison to the data of such a creature, being or whatever you want to call it I am claiming as it's fundamental building blocks.

With continued respect, scientifically I am not built out of DNA. That is indeed the data used to build my outer structure, but I am carbon-based. If I were based on DNA, I would be protein-based.

Would you classify yourself as organic then or energy-based?

Let me ask the representative of Blog Waters, is your DNA imbued with energy by it's mere existence? For that is the best comparison to the data of such a creature, being or whatever you want to call it I am claiming as it's fundamental building blocks.

But DNA by itself is simply data; it is not alive per se. It is the expression of DNA into a dynamic system (an organic body) that is alive. Similarly the data description of a nine-tailed fox is but a description, and it is the expression of that description in a dynamic system (a computer-based digital domain if we understand correctly) that is alive.

But DNA by itself is simply data; it is not alive per se. It is the expression of DNA into a dynamic system (an organic body) that is alive. Similarly the data description of a nine-tailed fox is but a description, and it is the expression of that description in a dynamic system (a computer-based digital domain if we understand correctly) that is alive.Thank you, ambassador. This is what I have been trying to say. That such a creature cannot be considered organic, robotic or energy based. It is would be that radical of a difference in nature that it very well could fall outside the protection of this proposal.

Thank you, ambassador. This is what I have been trying to say. That such a creature cannot be considered organic, robotic or energy based. It is would be that radical of a difference in nature that it very well could fall outside the protection of this proposal.

I recognize your concern and assure you that this proposal is not exclusively covering organic-, robotic- or energy-based beings. While there exists debate over the whether the nine-tailed fox is in fact energy- or data-based, regardless they would be protected by this resolution provided they were 1) self-aware and 2) intellectually capable of participating in government.

Unfortunately, we are only about 1/4 of the way towards enough delegates to bring this to a vote of the full UN.

While I do acknowledge your intentions as being so, honorable representative of Blog Waters, i fear without explicit mention there may be those in the future who would seek to deny such rights through the use of letter of the law interpretation rather than spirit of the law interpretation.

As I see a poll has recently been enacted, I will state this is my reason for not yet endorsing such a proposal. I am merely worried about it.

If you feel you cannot clearly state what a digital nine-tailed fox is, then repropose it without mention to any specific forms and merely list that one need only be self-aware and intellectually capable of participating in governing irregardless of their origin or state of being.

The nature of this or any universe calls that any being able to be seen by other beings is a lifeform and thus if it can dominate at any time the other being then it is intellegent enough to do so. Also if said being is able to form a government and gain membership in the UN then it by being allowed to enter gains any rights given members and where is the need to single out any being that is a member. Those not members who do not apply for membership need only follow the rules for membership and thus become equal members with equal rights as such. Thus if a sack of rocks apply for membership in the UN and is given membership then members must treat them as equals and all UN resolutions apply to them as it would any other thing that might become a member.


To debate what is or is not in this area can not be done since normal laws of one nation as far as defining life may not work with the laws of defining life for others. Simply because we can't speak to or understand a being doesn't mean that being is stupid or below us. We may be the ones below it. Humans have long assumed the GOD role in any universe they come in contact with and this is not always the case as humans fall far from being a GOD... as do many being who act like they should be treated as GODs...

There was once a saying "All things are created equal" that holds true for all known things but that is where it ends as many things cause each item to change thus no longer be what it was when it was created and therefore not equal to other things even living beings.

Life to many was created as were all things given to living things then it was allowed to evolve and thus change from it's original form into what is has become today.. Also intervention by outside events as well as elements cause change in each thing slowly in some and faster in others that bring them away from being equal to what they were first created as...

So this idea is needless as we see it since any member is equal to all members as far as their rights. Thus we need not make an effort to include one group or another since we have already included them as equals when they became members here. Those that don't like one member group or another have two choices leave and not have to deal with them or follow the rules and give them any respect due them as members in equal standing.

Also if said being is able to form a government and gain membership in the UN then it by being allowed to enter gains any rights given members and where is the need to single out any being that is a member.

Cavirra, you are mistaken. The UN recognizes governments, not individuals. The legislation passed by the UN reflect this.

Unless we specifically pass a proposal to encompass all beings, then any subgroup can be discriminated against, particularly when outside of their nation of origin.

To further make my point I propose the following change:
THEREFORE, the UN seeks to clearly define “person” as used in the laws of this organization to mean any self-aware being intellectually capable of independently participating in government, irregardless of their base form or origin, when given adequate access;

I oppose said change. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

For the Expansion of Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Blog Waters

Description: WHEREAS it is a well-noted flaw of democracy that certain social classes and cultures in the minority can face undue hardship, unfair treatment and exclusion from participation in government; and

WHEREAS the wholesale exclusion of any individual is fundamentally contrary to a free and democratic society -- and disparate oppression is equally contrary in a despotic or totalitarian society -- regardless of that party's religion, creed, race, gender, disability, existence, mortality or dining habits; and

RECOGNIZING that the Nation States UN is a complex multiverse composed of vastly diverse nations, many with differing cultures, citizenships and even realities; and

RECOGNIZING that emigration occurs naturally, spreading citizens from various realities throughout the entire multiverse;

SEEKING to expand protections offered to citizens traditionally defined as “human” to equally-deserving citizens of various origins who have a similar stake in nations' governments;

RECOGNIZING that with these freedom come the full responsibilities of citizens and, as such, violation of the laws of any nation are equally enforceable upon all subclasses, provided such laws do not unduly deny equal rights; and

THEREFORE, the UN seeks to clearly define “person” as used in the laws of this organization to mean any self-aware being (organic, robot, energy-based or otherwise) intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access;

AS SUCH, resolutions shall be interpreted to include all covered by this definition in their protections or limitations.


This resolution merely justifies bloated bereucracy.We're strongly against this proposal because I know deep down its all talk no action.And huge amounts of money would be wasted as a result.Give taxpayers a break!
Sir Jack Straw
PM for TheElitists
UN delegate,ConservativeRepublicans

I oppose said change. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

Got you on that one.

This resolution merely justifies bloated bereucracy.We're strongly against this proposal because I know deep down its all talk no action.And huge amounts of money would be wasted as a result.Give taxpayers a break!
Sir Jack Straw
PM for TheElitists
UN delegate,ConservativeRepublicans

Huh? How does this bloat bereucracy (sic) and waste money? If anything, it opens up more people to the pleasure of supporting their government through payment of taxes. Just think, suddenly you'd be able to make vampires, talking trees and intelligent light beams pay taxes. It'd be an incredible income source!

Having finally had the time to give the honoured ambassador's proposal proper consideration, as distinct from the side-track that has taken all our collective energies thus far, we observe a problem. A rather serious problem, unfortunately.

In seeking to define personhood -- right of access to human rights protections -- individually, the proposal commendably protects exceptional individuals of races which would not normally be considered sapient as a whole. Unfortunately in doing so, it also excludes those who are exceptionally ill-equipped members of races which would normally be considered sapient. Since these severely mentally impaired people are very often in grave need of such protection, we think this gap needs urgent plugging.

Since we are loth to lose the beneficial exception case, may we suggest a dual definition; a person should be an individual capable of governmental participation, or a member of a species normally so capable. Perhaps additional wording should also be considered to protect exceptional being who through accident or malice become impaired, or whose developmental cycle causes them to pass through non-intelligent phases.

Hayden Seigfried glanced over the top of his glasses at Sir Jack Straw. "You must be joking, sir. Are we even looking at the same proposal?"

The Catawaban glanced down and skimmed the proposal before him. "It seems we are reading the same proposal. So the question must be...how do you come to your odd and erroneous conclusion?"

"It would seem to me that this proposal does nothing to create more bureaucracy. It merely repurposes the bureaucracy already in place by redefining the means by which they apply and enforce legislation already in place." Seigfried took off his glasses to look straight at the Elitist.

"Sir, I seem always to be mistaken about this, however it seems that one of us is confused about the fundamental basis of 'conservativism.' You see, though conservative, 'conservativism' is an off-branch of Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism). The main focus and emphasis of Liberalism has been preserving and ensuring individual rights and freedoms. So it would seem very, very counter productive to the beliefs that you believe in to oppose this proposal."

Seigfried turned his attention to delegate from Blog Waters. He grinned. "First off, Catawaba is honored to be mentioned as assisting in the draft of this proposal. However...I am a bit sheepish to say that I don't think one wry and sarcastic comment about a failure in the previoius proposal should deserve such honor."

His grin disappeared as he spoke more officially. "Though the population of Catawaba is human, or so we assume, we hold the gifts of liberty dear to our heart. The thought that any person may be denied their fundamental, inalienable rights is revolting to us. Catawaba will be changing its national definitions of who holds the rights and liberties of a citizen to fit all who qualify as sentient beings, but we will also give our support and the region's approval as delegate to this proposal. The Blessings of Liberty should not be with held simply because they have already been thought of as 'human rights.'"

Gobbannium,
I understand your concern, but am worried that this goes beyond the scope of this proposal. Though it is difficult and pains me to admit this, I see no reason to extend right to governmental participation to those too impaired to use such a right. It is true that they are affected by our laws, but so too are unintelligent rocks, rivers and buildings. To be sure, a just government must take their concerns into account, however, it would be counterproductive to include the right to governmental access to those who do not possess the capability of utilizing that right.

Furthermore, as was mentioned once before, perhaps in the previous thread on this topic, the ability to participate in government is a very low bar. We are confident that, for example, the vast majority of learning-disabled humans meet this criteria.

Still, I do recognize this very important concern and encourage you to perhaps draft a proposal to protect these vulnerable populations; perhaps through the establishment of an ombudsman program? If you were interested in such an effort, we would support you.

"However...I am a bit sheepish to say that I don't think one wry and sarcastic comment about a failure in the previoius proposal should deserve such honor."

Ah, but it was a useful sarcastic comment. Those are quite welcome.

We fear the honoured ambassador mistakes the effects of his own resolution. It does not define who may participate in government, it merely uses the ability to so participate to redefine for legislative purposes what it is to be a person. In other words, the UN would be bound to consider only those who can participate in government to be people, and only to those people would "human rights" be extended. Those who one would normally consider sapient but not in full possession of their faculties at a stroke have all their existing rights removed; even, arguably, those specifically designed to protect them, since they no longer count as people.

In such circumstances, crafting a resolution to reintroduce the lost protections would require a very deft touch in addition to considerable latitude on the part of the secretariat (OOC: i.e. the mods would have to bend the rules until they creak). We find this a highly undesirable situation.

We fear the honoured ambassador mistakes the effects of his own resolution.

Oi vey! You are absolutely right. Our response did indeed misinterpret our own proposal. :headbang: Your dual definition seems to be a good one and if this proposal returns to the table, I will certainly include it.

OOC: Honestly, I think this proposal is about dead. This whole process of soliciting endorsements seems a bit more than I'm able to complete. How strongly do others feel about this issue?

Oi vey! You are absolutely right. Our response did indeed misinterpret our own proposal. :headbang: Your dual definition seems to be a good one and if this proposal returns to the table, I will certainly include it.

OOC: Honestly, I think this proposal is about dead. This whole process of soliciting endorsements seems a bit more than I'm able to complete. How strongly do others feel about this issue?
If you would then, honored ambassador, please include my proposed changes. The Popotan would be willing to vote for this proposal then.

As for the effort, very few proposals would normally get off in the first run through unless you had a lot of strings you could pull.

OOC: Honestly, I think this proposal is about dead. This whole process of soliciting endorsements seems a bit more than I'm able to complete. How strongly do others feel about this issue?

OOC: honestly, most of the proposals I've had any knowledge of have been cooperative efforts. Cobdenia mentioned that the Standardization proposal at vote was mostly telegrammed for by other people, and I've helped out telegramming for a few. Put something interesting together and ask for help, and you never know who'll stick their hand up for an evening's work :-)

A well written resolution that actually provides a practical working definition, well done.