NationStates Jolt Archive

Humane Funeral Provisions Act
Category: Social Justice Strength: Strong Proposed by: Absolvability

Recognizing the strain on Insurance Companies as well as families as the increase in the average funeral goes up. Proposing to establish a financial responsibility to its deceased, registered citizens.

Establishing each Nation's right, all be it religious or federal, to see to the manner in which these ceremonies take place-- including, and urging towards, delegating that undertaking to the families themselves. However, acknowledging each nation's own level of granted political freedoms.

Mandating a participation of citizens in this policy under all Assembled Nations to be no less than 78% to be covered to a total of 100% financially. Endeavoring, through necessity, to have governments drive down the costs of proceedings and insurance. Urges nations to consider cremation as a cost-efficient and viable option.

Allowing for the increased taxation of citizens provided: They have not exempted from this provision; taxation does not increase in an amount greater than 8% of current rates.

Allowing for public donations provided: It can be proven before the World
Assembly that each donation was voluntary; that the donation did not come from somebody qualified for these provisions.

Supposing the citizens right to opt out of recieving provisions when: That citizen has recorded financial ability to render its own disposal; no less than two relatives survive the future deceased to handle their final affairs.

"Admittedly, this thought occurred to me and I made haste in preparing a proposal for this particular audience. It goes without saying, to my mind, that this is a worthwhile venture. Too many people are excluded from Insurance Companies because of their present condition of health. Furthermore, the butchery of Supply & Demand has been represented well by the cost of funeral services. Casketes specifically, which costs a pretty penny for a families piece of mind, that they may not feel guilty for supplying a less than standard final resting place for a body that will never consciously know that home. By Supply & Demand, shouldn't costs be low? In that, sooner or later, the demand will be 100%?

It shall be the government's responsibility therefore to regulate these activities. To oversee, handle, and guarantee services for its citizens in cooperation with National law. I hope I have properly protected the parties involved with this piece of legislation. Certainly, though, I invite rhetoric-- bad or good, that might help us all come to terms with this proposal."

You really should've gotten some input on this before submitting it to the proposal queue.

The language of your proposal is dense and hard to decipher. I also don't see why funeral expenses are an international issue.

Humane Funeral Provisions Act
Category: Social Justice Strength: Strong Proposed by: Absolvability

Recognizing the strain on Insurance Companies as well as families as the increase in the average funeral goes up. Proposing to establish a financial responsibility to its deceased, registered citizens.
It took us some time to realise that the full stops here were not, in fact, full stops, but merely end-of-clause markers. There must be a less confusing way to chain remarks like that.

Gobbannium does not run on an insurance paradigm. Insurance is widely regarded as gambling, and therefore indulged in with some caution. There is therefore little to no strain appearing on insurance companies in the current climate. We aren't entirely sure what "the increase in the average funeral" is meant to be; we suspect it is cost-related rather than a matter of the complexity of ceremonies.

The final clause of this set also makes no sense. Who is the "it" whose deceased, registered citizens require a financial responsibility to be established?

Establishing each Nation's right, all be it religious or federal, to see to the manner in which these ceremonies take place-- including, and urging towards, delegating that undertaking to the families themselves. However, acknowledging each nation's own level of granted political freedoms.
The blocker clause. We don't find this particularly objectionable.

Mandating a participation of citizens in this policy under all Assembled Nations to be no less than 78% to be covered to a total of 100% financially. Endeavoring, through necessity, to have governments drive down the costs of proceedings and insurance. Urges nations to consider cremation as a cost-efficient and viable option.
We can make no sense at all of the first clause here. The second is imprecise. The third is an outright contradiction of the previous section.

Allowing for the increased taxation of citizens provided: They have not exempted from this provision; taxation does not increase in an amount greater than 8% of current rates.
We rather suspect that this is illegal.

Allowing for public donations provided: It can be proven before the World
Assembly that each donation was voluntary; that the donation did not come from somebody qualified for these provisions.
This is very clumsy and may not achieve what you wish. Public donations to what, pray?

Supposing the citizens right to opt out of recieving provisions when: That citizen has recorded financial ability to render its own disposal; no less than two relatives survive the future deceased to handle their final affairs.
"Supposing"? We suppose we should be grateful that such a condescending clause exists at all. Its presence, cementing the assumption of insurance culture behind the proposal, is quite enough to guarantee our opposition.

Humane Funeral Provisions Act
Category: Social Justice Strength: Strong Proposed by: Absolvability

"By the great spirits, not another one," Gorim said, rolling his eyes.

Recognizing the strain on Insurance Companies as well as families as the increase in the average funeral goes up. Proposing to establish a financial responsibility to its deceased, registered citizens.

"What about for those of us who do not have insurance companies, but provide for the disposal of the dead as part of governmental duties?" Thundra asked. "What use would it be to us when the direct cost to our citizens is nonexistant?"

Establishing each Nation's right, all be it religious or federal, to see to the manner in which these ceremonies take place-- including, and urging towards, delegating that undertaking to the families themselves. However, acknowledging each nation's own level of granted political freedoms.

"These people just lost someone they love. Do you really want to saddle them with trying to figure out how to dispose of the body? How heartless are you?" Thundra asked.

Mandating a participation of citizens in this policy under all Assembled Nations to be no less than 78% to be covered to a total of 100% financially. Endeavoring, through necessity, to have governments drive down the costs of proceedings and insurance. Urges nations to consider cremation as a cost-efficient and viable option.

At this point Silara, Terrim, and Gorim move to cover the night elf's mouth and restrain her, leaving Engle to speak.

"I think what our night elf friend was about to say is that we view cremation to be a violation of the body. In our experience, it upsets the spirits of those who were cremated, leaving them restless and often seeking revenge. Considering this means you literally end up with incorporeal creatures attacking you, we believe it best not to cremate," Engle said. "In addition, please clarify this section."

Allowing for the increased taxation of citizens provided: They have not exempted from this provision; taxation does not increase in an amount greater than 8% of current rates.

"Unless I'm reading this wrong, this entire proposal is illegal. The World Assembly may not impose taxes upon citizens," Engle said.

Allowing for public donations provided: It can be proven before the World
Assembly that each donation was voluntary; that the donation did not come from somebody qualified for these provisions.

"So the World Assembly is regulating charity now?" Engle asked. "And if someone really wants to donate, despite it being their family member, why stop them?"

Supposing the citizens right to opt out of recieving provisions when: That citizen has recorded financial ability to render its own disposal; no less than two relatives survive the future deceased to handle their final affairs.

"Only supposing this exists and not granting?" Engle asked.

"Admittedly, this thought occurred to me and I made haste in preparing a proposal for this particular audience. It goes without saying, to my mind, that this is a worthwhile venture. Too many people are excluded from Insurance Companies because of their present condition of health. Furthermore, the butchery of Supply & Demand has been represented well by the cost of funeral services. Casketes specifically, which costs a pretty penny for a families piece of mind, that they may not feel guilty for supplying a less than standard final resting place for a body that will never consciously know that home. By Supply & Demand, shouldn't costs be low? In that, sooner or later, the demand will be 100%?

It shall be the government's responsibility therefore to regulate these activities. To oversee, handle, and guarantee services for its citizens in cooperation with National law. I hope I have properly protected the parties involved with this piece of legislation. Certainly, though, I invite rhetoric-- bad or good, that might help us all come to terms with this proposal."

"I am not sure natural law means what you think it means," Engle replied.

I'm increasingly aware that my diction and structure were irregular and perhaps insufficient. For that I apologize and ask-- by submitting, have I skipped any possibility of re-drafting? That was not my intention. So, regardless of my folly, let us discuss this in a civil manner. And with a mind open to common logic as well as formality.

As far as my poor use in pronouns, let me reiterate that it is each individual Nation that will be financially responsible for its deceased.

Concerning the matter of Nations already largely in accordance with this Act: why then do you oppose it? Just because this may seem trivial or outdated to you does not mean we must forget that we work inside of a World Assembly. If you don't think the standards of your own Nation are good enough to be passed along-- well, I'm not sure what to say about that.

Let it be known that cremation was only an example of what governments may consider a cost-efficient method, and that the Act includes the rights for each Nation to decide what is appropriate.

I can only wonder about remarks to the 'legality' of this Act. This has been proposed precisely to make it legal. It being illegal or not seems a faulty arguement. Furthermore, if the World Assembly has any strength in it at all, is it not obvious that they enforce their policies? Is this illegal? I suspect Nations worried about that particular sentiment do not belong in the World Assembly. Specifically, of taxation, this Act endeavors to help citizens financially and therefore does not suppose taxation in excess to be warranted or moral.

Citizens rights are 'supposed,' because varying degrees of political freedoms are allowed to citizens of different Nations. Therefore, while Nations are held accountable to the World Assembly, citizens are still accounable to their Nations. This Act allows for National means to a Global end. I suspect some delegates of having short memories as well as difficulty with comprehension.

I'm increasingly aware that my diction and structure were irregular and perhaps insufficient. For that I apologize and ask-- by submitting, have I skipped any possibility of re-drafting? That was not my intention. So, regardless of my folly, let us discuss this in a civil manner. And with a mind open to common logic as well as formality.

"Not really. You can have it pulled, redraft it, and then resubmit it," Terrim answered.

Concerning the matter of Nations already largely in accordance with this Act: why then do you oppose it? Just because this may seem trivial or outdated to you does not mean we must forget that we work inside of a World Assembly. If you don't think the standards of your own Nation are good enough to be passed along-- well, I'm not sure what to say about that.

"Because we accept that the standards of our nations are not useful to others. Given just the diversity of cultures within our small group, how much more diverse is the rest of the World Assembly?" Engle asked. "And once again, is this even worthy to consider on the international scale?"

I can only wonder about remarks to the 'legality' of this Act. This has been proposed precisely to make it legal. It being illegal or not seems a faulty arguement. Furthermore, if the World Assembly has any strength in it at all, is it not obvious that they enforce their policies? Is this illegal? I suspect Nations worried about that particular sentiment do not belong in the World Assembly. Specifically, of taxation, this Act endeavors to help citizens financially and therefore does not suppose taxation in excess to be warranted or moral.

"The World Assembly has rules on what is and what is not allowed. One of those is that a proposal cannot contradict a resolution that has not been repealed. The World Assembly has already passed a resolution banning itself from imposing taxes of any sort on member nations or their peoples and..." Terrim began.

"And," Thundra said, breaking free of the two who were still holding her. "The World Assembly has banned itself from interfering in the taxes of any member nation as long as those taxes are not discriminatory."

Then, Thundra slapped a piece of paper (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14032767&postcount=19) onto the table, saying, "Read it for yourself."

"Damn, she's strong," Gorim said, picking himself up off the floor.

Citizens rights are 'supposed,' because varying degrees of political freedoms are allowed to citizens of different Nations. Therefore, while Nations are held accountable to the World Assembly, citizens are still accounable to their Nations. This Act allows for National means to a Global end. I suspect some delegates of having short memories as well as difficulty with comprehension.

"The World Assembly has already affirmed many rights for its peoples," Silara said, all the while filing her nails. "I would suggest reading over the passed proposals before revising this."

"Little girl, where did you get your training at?" Terrim asked.

"Did you think my job was just to sit there and look pretty at all of those diplomatic parties?" Silara countered.

"Not really. You can have it pulled, redraft it, and then resubmit it," Terrim answered.

-A short, no doubt relieved sigh escaped the Magistrates lips-- glad that this need not be the be-all and end-all of this proposal, and thinking pleasantly of the time, soon to be, that he had assistance in these matters by a blossoming region.-
"Well, I will be happy to do that. Perhaps my priorities weren't cleverly arranged, but that was always my intention Elder Terrim."


"Because we accept that the standards of our nations are not useful to others. Given just the diversity of cultures within our small group, how much more diverse is the rest of the World Assembly?" Engle asked. "And once again, is this even worthy to consider on the international scale?"

"I applaud the diversity of your own group yet urge you to consider setting aside modesty and recognizing the special nature of your own development. It seems to me, while every Nation is quite different, they for the greater part share a common predominant species, and need not be likened to your own Nation or Region. Though I admit this is not the point. I have already addressed this particular point, I thought, and fail to see the relavency in your arguement. Again-- we are here to build bridges. Efforts through a WILLING and VOLUNTARY World Assembly to strive towards some sort of global standard of good. This is a fickle and subjective image. Which is why every Nation is given the oppurtunity to vote, and why you mustn't only vote on matters of direct importance to you. Let us keep the heart of this Assembly in mind, and thus combine the two for thoughtful answers. It goes without saying that this proposal is worthy of consideration. The citizens of EVERY Nation do in fact die and are financially responsible for themselves/family in an overwhelming amount of cases. This promotes social inequality, or worse still, poverty in general. Death is nothing to be taken advantage of, therefore it must be in our hands to declare that one need not worry about money in their dying hours. Considering the last resolution passed, which did little more than talk, and the several repeal proposals I've laid eyes upon, I dare say that the Humane Funeral Provisions Act deserves more international eyes than the rest of that hash and rehash."


"The World Assembly has rules on what is and what is not allowed. One of those is that a proposal cannot contradict a resolution that has not been repealed. The World Assembly has already passed a resolution banning itself from imposing taxes of any sort on member nations or their peoples and..." Terrim began.

"And," Thundra said, breaking free of the two who were still holding her. "The World Assembly has banned itself from interfering in the taxes of any member nation as long as those taxes are not discriminatory."

"My intention was never to raise taxes, but to ensure that individual governments could not decide to in fact shirk their newfound financial responsiblity back to the people through more subversive means.

If my esteemed colleagues do not know what an Insurance Company is, due to their own enlightenment, I'm sure they can find a dictionary or history book that will help explain: Insurance Companies, presently responsible for these affairs, are highly discriminatory. Those in most need of their assistance are either turned down or charged higher rates. This is the worst kind of discrimination! MEDICAL DISCRIMINATION! My Act, legally, should be allowed to lay preventative measures against such an incident for this very reason.

And again, considering the remarkable diversity encapsulated by this World Assembly, it seems odd that discrimination has been decidedly frowned upon. I suppose that met well with you? I suppose that was not overstepping any bounds? Granted, discrimination is distasteful, but does this Assembly run on compassion or law?"

"May I?" The tall and lean magistrate asked, approaching Thundra from the front and examining first with downcast eyes the paper between them. Considering her response, he may or may not pick that paper up, walking back with it even as he began to read.

Humane Funeral Provisions Act
Category: Social Justice Strength: Strong Proposed by: Absolvability

Proposing to establish a financial responsibility on behalf of each Nation toward its deceased, registered citizens. Recognizing widespread methods such as Life Insurance to be corrupt and money-hungry. Furthermore encouraging nations to consider the exclusive nature of these systems (often ensuring that those requiring most help recieve the least, or pay the most for it,) to be medically discriminating.

MANDATING each Nation's financial responsibility for proceedings, ceremony, and burial of the deceased.

Maintaining for National Governments the oppurtunity to choose what method of disposal (religious, legal, moral, cost-efficient,) their individual compliance requires.
- Encouraging nations to work in tandem with families of the deceased to determine for mutual satisfaction the best means.

Allowing National Governments the oppurtunity to tax its citizens accordingly, or even progressively (by income,) but not excessively (as would for all intents and purposes nullify this Act.)
- Fully supporting government research in cost-efficient ways (such as cremation,) of disposal.

Establishing the Humane Funeral Provisions Committee to oversee and ensure sanitary disposals.
- And uninvasively ensure that pre-existing medical conditions do not effect provisions or taxation.
- To eliminate medical discrimination.
- To pool funds in excess as by national donation and distribute to developing nations.

Allowing citizens, strictly voluntarily, to opt out of recieving these provisions provided:
- They have sufficient proof of a financial ability to handle the aforementioned duties in accordance with national law.
- No less than two relatives survive the future deceased.

(OOC, is this draft any better? That is to say-- more formally legible?)

What makes people's funeral arrangements any of the World Assembly's business? It's not as though any individual nation's policies on the matter is likely to have any real effects on any other nations, after all...

Why the requirement for at least two surviving relatives in opt-out cases? If the deceased left enough resources to cover the funeral costs, and specified the details desired in their will, then (assuming that those details would be legal if they had left at least two living relatives...) why should the national government have any right to over-rule their wishes?

And anyway, even if you ignore the argument (which I consider to be a strong one) that this isn't something with which this Assembly should be meddling, why should it be the national governments that automatically get the job: Some of the nations around here have either Confederal or Federal systems of government in which matters of 'family law' -- which would seem the most appropriate category for this measure -- fall under the jurisdiction of other levels of government, instead...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

(and the IDU's regional delegate here, again, too...)

This is a proposal aimed directly at the elimination of poverty and exploitation. Recognizing that in many circumstances necessities (utilities, for example,) have been handled by the government in effort to subdue inflation. Aware that the law of Supply and Demand works poorly when Demand is at 100%. We therefore endeavor to establish a Supply of 100%.

The religious or moral properties of a 'funeral,' as we will refer to it for generality, are in my PERSONAL belief no business of the government. I address simply the financial obligation, and as stipulated leave specifics in national hands, observing that many nations do not allow for the same political freedoms as my own nation.

Regardless of money rendered, it will be required that some physical body tend to the final affairs of the deceased. No less than two surviving relatives are required in case, tragically, one should die. It should go without saying that if an individual decides to handle the matter themselves... then they are required to handle it themselves.

As with the word 'funeral,' I use the word 'nation' and 'national' as a generality. It is not necessary or possible for me to list every single type of structuring. To be frank, I don't have time to examine every nation within the World Assembly. It seems that (verging on OOC here) my crude jargon is in the utmost accordance with these proceedings (the site) and I apologize if I seemed any more specific than that.

This is a proposal aimed directly at the elimination of poverty and exploitation. Recognizing that in many circumstances necessities (utilities, for example,) have been handled by the government in effort to subdue inflation. Aware that the law of Supply and Demand works poorly when Demand is at 100%. We therefore endeavor to establish a Supply of 100%.*(mutters something uncomplimentary about 'socialism' and 'slippery slopes'...)*

Regardless of money rendered, it will be required that some physical body tend to the final affairs of the deceased. No less than two surviving relatives are required in case, tragically, one should die. It should go without saying that if an individual decides to handle the matter themselves... then they are required to handle it themselves.So are you going to try abolishing 'Wills', too? If a person can legally make testamentary disposition of whatever assets they leave then I do not see any reason why those arrangements cannot involve the details of their funerals... And in many nations' law-codes, people can arrange for individuals who are not necessarily related to them to handle their after-death business, under the title of 'Executors', which would seem to answer the requirement that "some physical body tend to the final affairs of the deceased"...
Also, of course, there's the possibility that people with religious beliefs might arrange pre-death for their churches to handle the funeral details, too.

As with the word 'funeral,' I use the word 'nation' and 'national' as a generality. It is not necessary or possible for me to list every single type of structuring.Under the rules governing WA resolutions, it is a well-established principle that "The law does what the law says': Consequently, if a resolution assigns some duty or power to "national governments", without mentioning any alternatives, then it is specifically the 'national' governments alone -- and no others -- that are given that duty or power.
So, 'yes', you do need to allow explicitly for other alternatives as well.


Borrin o Redwood,
a.s.o.

I appreciate your critique and now acknowledge the necessity to be more specific. However, I hesitate to say that I intended for 'national' governments to delegate this authority where it sees best fit in accordance with their own economic/governmental dependency, as otherwise very little would be accomplished at all. Which seems to be the precedent here-- that all passed resolutions do very little, and that all failed proposals over-stepped the WA's authority. If we are not here to make hard decisions, why are we here?

If I am required to explicitly describe alternatives, then why would you ever imagine I meant to abolish wills? Or executors? I made no such references. This is legislation for the common good and should, open-mindedly, be interpreted as such. I will amend my final clause perhaps to be more vocal with my intentions. Furthermore, when I say 'tend to the final affairs,' I certainly don't exclude working in cooperation with a church or anything else. Citizens who opt out of these provisions are not bound by its stipulations.

I don't believe it to be the government's responsibility to pay for funeral costs in any way, shape, or form.
I also don't think this is an international concern.

I'm beginning to agree wholeheartedly that this is not an International concern. It sure the hell should be though.

"I applaud the diversity of your own group yet urge you to consider setting aside modesty and recognizing the special nature of your own development. It seems to me, while every Nation is quite different, they for the greater part share a common predominant species, and need not be likened to your own Nation or Region. Though I admit this is not the point. I have already addressed this particular point, I thought, and fail to see the relavency in your arguement. Again-- we are here to build bridges. Efforts through a WILLING and VOLUNTARY World Assembly to strive towards some sort of global standard of good. This is a fickle and subjective image. Which is why every Nation is given the oppurtunity to vote, and why you mustn't only vote on matters of direct importance to you. Let us keep the heart of this Assembly in mind, and thus combine the two for thoughtful answers. It goes without saying that this proposal is worthy of consideration. The citizens of EVERY Nation do in fact die and are financially responsible for themselves/family in an overwhelming amount of cases. This promotes social inequality, or worse still, poverty in general. Death is nothing to be taken advantage of, therefore it must be in our hands to declare that one need not worry about money in their dying hours. Considering the last resolution passed, which did little more than talk, and the several repeal proposals I've laid eyes upon, I dare say that the Humane Funeral Provisions Act deserves more international eyes than the rest of that hash and rehash."

"Species isn't the only issue," Thundra replied. "The Blood Elves are descendents of a different culture of Night Elves that appeared on our world. It was only the length of time and the influence of magic which caused their species to diverge so widely from my own. And even now, there are still two cultures of draenei, one not even being part of Eluneyasa. And there used to be two cultures of blood elves, three of orcs, several of troll, several of humans, two of dwarves... I think you can see where this is going."

"Our world is not just limited to each species having the same culture, but has had a large variety of cultures. It's only been in recent history, compared to the long history of the Night Elves, that we have come to have as few as we do," Terrim said.

"The relevance of our argument is that the World Assembly is made up of thousands of nations. Our planet only has seven left, and yet those seven differ widely on a number of issues. Not to mention the peoples who don't even have nations yet. If we can find such diversity among seven nations, how much is there when you start talking thousands?

"And, no, citizens of every nations do not all die. Death is not the guaranteed innevitability that humans seem so fond of billing it as. Our own nation has people in it that are eleven thousand years old and who used to be immortal, while at the same time we can name another nation that is full of immortals due to them being undead.

"Also, we know of nations with robots, nations with AIs, nations made of demons... How are you supposed to make a single law regulating the dead when the peoples you have to deal with range from the magical undead to creatures that were never alive to begin with?" Thundra asked.

"And we've already established that it is not true that citizens of every nation have the financial responsibility of burying their dead," Terrim added. "And as of yet, you have not shown it to be an international concern. Individual nations have already proven they know how to handle this particular subject. Do you have any other reasons why this might be just as important as world hunger?"

"And, no, we're not buying that part about funeral costs. Many of those who would be made poor by it were probably already there or getting close to it because of other factors anyway," Thundra added.

"My intention was never to raise taxes, but to ensure that individual governments could not decide to in fact shirk their newfound financial responsiblity back to the people through more subversive means.

"Which is still illegal," Thundra said. "Read the resolution I put on the table. It clearly states you are not allowed to do that."

If my esteemed colleagues do not know what an Insurance Company is, due to their own enlightenment, I'm sure they can find a dictionary or history book that will help explain: Insurance Companies, presently responsible for these affairs, are highly discriminatory. Those in most need of their assistance are either turned down or charged higher rates. This is the worst kind of discrimination! MEDICAL DISCRIMINATION! My Act, legally, should be allowed to lay preventative measures against such an incident for this very reason.

"The goblins tried the insurance scam with us," Thundra said. "That, and many better reasons, are why they currently live in abject poverty and find their pitiful pirate groups constantly hunted down. We refuse to have friendly terms with them until they reform their ways and they stubbornly refuse to reform. Even the undead changed their ways, despite the hurt it must have been to them."

"And we note that those companies are usually privately owned and that they play an odds game. In effect, they're gambling, only the gamble is with the lives of real people. While reprehensible, that does not mean that the funeral practices of every nation within this organization need to be regulated. What it does mean is that a corrupt form of business needs to be regulated," Engle said.

"If you really are opposed to what insurance companies do, then handle them directly instead of trying to sneak around them and stab them in the back. We orcs prefer to meet our enemy head-on. Perhaps you could learn from us," Gorim added.

And again, considering the remarkable diversity encapsulated by this World Assembly, it seems odd that discrimination has been decidedly frowned upon. I suppose that met well with you? I suppose that was not overstepping any bounds? Granted, discrimination is distasteful, but does this Assembly run on compassion or law?"

"Discrimination of certain types has been frowned upon," Terrim said. "The discrimination inherent in nature has not been; nor can it be. And, ultimately, that seems to be what this is about; you see companies that discriminate based upon access to resources and risks and think that an entire area of life must be regulated to stop them. That is not how you hand this; if you do not like the predator, you kill it. You do not try to chase away its food."

"May I?" The tall and lean magistrate asked, approaching Thundra from the front and examining first with downcast eyes the paper between them. Considering her response, he may or may not pick that paper up, walking back with it even as he began to read.

Thundra waved. "I have four more back in my office."

Humane Funeral Provisions Act
Category: Social Justice Strength: Strong Proposed by: Absolvability

Proposing to establish a financial responsibility on behalf of each Nation toward its deceased, registered citizens. Recognizing widespread methods such as Life Insurance to be corrupt and money-hungry. Furthermore encouraging nations to consider the exclusive nature of these systems (often ensuring that those requiring most help recieve the least, or pay the most for it,) to be medically discriminating.

Terrim facepalms. "Same problems that we brought up with the idea last time. Why are you attacking the prey instead of the predator?"

MANDATING each Nation's financial responsibility for proceedings, ceremony, and burial of the deceased.

"Which is a violation of any religious belief or cultural norm that says the family must do it," Thundra said.

Maintaining for National Governments the oppurtunity to choose what method of disposal (religious, legal, moral, cost-efficient,) their individual compliance requires.
- Encouraging nations to work in tandem with families of the deceased to determine for mutual satisfaction the best means.

"Oh, great. I can see nations insulting their citizens by burying their dead in the nude after using it as a target dummy on the gun range," Gorim muttered.

Allowing National Governments the oppurtunity to tax its citizens accordingly, or even progressively (by income,) but not excessively (as would for all intents and purposes nullify this Act.)
- Fully supporting government research in cost-efficient ways (such as cremation,) of disposal.

"Once again, illegal. Same reasons as previous draft," Thundra said, reaching to borrow Silara's nail file.

Establishing the Humane Funeral Provisions Committee to oversee and ensure sanitary disposals.
- And uninvasively ensure that pre-existing medical conditions do not effect provisions or taxation.
- To eliminate medical discrimination.
- To pool funds in excess as by national donation and distribute to developing nations.

"Why don't you just write legislation dealing with medical discrimination?" Engle asked.

Allowing citizens, strictly voluntarily, to opt out of recieving these provisions provided:
- They have sufficient proof of a financial ability to handle the aforementioned duties in accordance with national law.
- No less than two relatives survive the future deceased.

"Meh. This draft has most of the same issues as the previous one. Someone wake me when they actually deal with the problems," Silara said, scooting down in her seat and lowering her head to take a nap.

Well I'm not going to dignify much of that with a response, though I find the speakers and nation being represented to be worthy in my eyes. It's obvious that none of you wish to have any say in what goes on in any other nation... or at the very least that you fail to recognize problems beyond your own country as problems at all. I think it is in your best interest to resign from the World Assembly; this is obviously not the responsibility you desire.

I may very well write legislation dealing with medical discrimination. I look forward to recieving your opposition in that matter as well. Obviously you are not aware that medical discrimination doesn't only apply to the dead and dying, but that it also entails a statistical likelihood of certain ethnicities coming down with certain life-threatening illnesses.

Anybody who would like to nap may do so in their own home.

It is an idiotic statement that anything is immortal, considering magic especially, which often times enables the immortal to become mortal again. So on and so fourth. Point being, all things can be killed. Which is to say they can be rendered unable to effect this world as we physically know it, regardless of whatever cultural or religious beliefs you somehow feel are beneficial to disclose.

Well I'm not going to dignify much of that with a response, though I find the speakers and nation being represented to be worthy in my eyes. It's obvious that none of you wish to have any say in what goes on in any other nation... or at the very least that you fail to recognize problems beyond your own country as problems at all. I think it is in your best interest to resign from the World Assembly; this is obviously not the responsibility you desire.

"If our nations wished no say, we would never have formed Eluneyasa to begin with. Eluneyasa is a commonwealth of nations, specifically the nations from our homeworld of Azeroth," Engle said.

"In addition, our jobs here are, primarily, to represent the viewpoints of our respective governments. This means we were specifically sent to look after our own nations first," Gorim added.

"If we were concerned with just our own viewpoint and it wasn't for that illegal passage, we would support this. Our governments do provide funeral services for our citizens, we don't have insurance companies because of the problems you listed with them, and we wouldn't be affected by this. And yet, we have problems with it. Consider that," Engle said.

I may very well write legislation dealing with medical discrimination. I look forward to recieving your opposition in that matter as well. Obviously you are not aware that medical discrimination doesn't only apply to the dead and dying, but that it also entails a statistical likelihood of certain ethnicities coming down with certain life-threatening illnesses.

"We're aware of it; we're also aware that this proposal does nothing to address any of the problems with it except funeral costs. And funeral costs are a bitter victory for a family that loses a member to cancer or some other disease," Engle said.

"We will oppose it if it's illegal or written badly," Thundra said. "Bad legislation does no one any good.

Anybody who would like to nap may do so in their own home.

Silara continued to nap, her light snoring being the only response.

It is an idiotic statement that anything is immortal, considering magic especially, which often times enables the immortal to become mortal again. So on and so fourth. Point being, all things can be killed. Which is to say they can be rendered unable to effect this world as we physically know it, regardless of whatever cultural or religious beliefs you somehow feel are beneficial to disclose.

"And that is proof that you do not know of which you speak. Immortality merely guarantees a chance at living forever. And it's pretty difficult to turn people who've already died back to mortals again," Thundra replied. "If you are going to call a statement idiotic, make sure it isn't your reasoning that is guilty of the accusation.

"Also, we can note that a little thing like death hasn't stopped people before. The Burning Legion leader Sargeras was killed three or four times before his life was permanently ended, the human mage Medivh was killed and came back to life, an entire army of the dead was raised to march across our world, and we have seen entire towns stripped apart by angry ghosts. If someone really wants to kill you, do you think a little thing like them being dead is going to get in the way?"

im⋅mor⋅tal   /ɪˈmɔrtl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-mawr-tl] Show IPA
–adjective 1. not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying

You can not guarantee a chance. Unless of course you mean to say that everything is guaranteed to have a chance at happening... which is like saying that 100% of the time you make sense 8% of the time. You use words incorrectly and I'm tired of debating it. Immortal means unable to die. As such this status can not be revoked. Therefore it does not exist.

Not once until now was it mentioned that you had any intentions of voting for this regardless of changes I made. I think you enjoy a fine arguement more than you enjoy getting things done.

OOC- You seem to just really enjoy the RP of this all, which I can understand because I've been a role player for years. Which is why, at first, I latched onto your posts and tried to reply appropriately. However, given the political nature of this game, your constant references to World of Warcraft are annoying. Lets discuss something real and tangible, hmm? Elves don't exist. And you know very well what immortal means. And what crappy country are you RPing where an elected official takes naps during her duties?

Officially, haven't we all been told (in the FAQ or in some kinda sticky topic,) that real world references won't be tolerated? The UN doesn't exist here... Iraq... USA... it's all moot, right? And yet you can sit there and babble about Azeroth. Which would be okay since it isn't real and therefore shouldn't offend anybody. But what IS NOT OKAY is for you to say "The Burning Legion leader Sargeras was killed three or four times..." because that is bullcrap and need not matter beyond your own little RP. That doesn't belong in a political forum designed to promote truth and justice. Good god.

OOC: you don't get to decide what kind of nation a player gets to RP, or how they decide to RP it. The most you get to do is ignore a player/nation you don't fancy.

And as to your "elves don't exist" remark, try telling that to the many, many nations that RP as elven in this game. Or, for that matter, try telling the ones who RP aliens, magic-users, robots, futuristic spacefaring empires, past-tech peoples stuck in timewarp bubbles, prehistoric cavemen, sentient beings of various and sundry non-human species, and so on and so forth that they can't act as such in here. I do believe they will in return tell you where to go, with short and pithy directions as to how to get there.

You grasp that players can't drag RL stuff in here, and that's good. But by the same token, as this is not RL, preconceptions and restrictions on RP style dragged out of RL conventions and facts likewise do not apply.

OOC: You know I had been thinking earlier about how out of line I was. I sorta flew off the handle and that wasn't my intention. What I mean to say is that it is unfair for her to be able, ICly, to 'auto' her truths upon me? My character isn't aware of a Burning Crusade. It is a question of interaction. I think it hinders the essense of this game.

OOC: You know I had been thinking earlier about how out of line I was. I sorta flew off the handle and that wasn't my intention. What I mean to say is that it is unfair for her to be able, ICly, to 'auto' her truths upon me? My character isn't aware of a Burning Crusade. It is a question of interaction. I think it hinders the essense of this game.

OOC: Speaking as one of those nations with non-humans, I don't believe that anyone was attempting to force 'truths' upon you. Eluneyasa wasn't saying that you had to have those races in your nation. It's just that Elune's nation has those races. Altan Steppes is right. If you don't like it, you don't have to respond to it. There's nations out there that have Jedi, or Borg, or all other kinds of RL sci-fi/fanasy nations. There's also nations which are based on RL nations. To each their own. :)

With all the different nations, your character will likely never know all the history. I find that rather fun, actually. It's a good excuse at times to stare blankly at people and boggle over what was just said. :p

It really doesn't hinder the essence of the game. That is the essence of the game. To create a nation and run it as you see fit. Elune sees fit to use WoW stuff. I see fit to create my own races to run mine. It's personal preference.

OOC- Not forcing truths in the sense that I have to accept elves, I can deal with that. That was just a careless frustrated remark. But... in matter of debate, presenting support for their arguement in form of irrefutable WoW testimony.

As far as boggling over what they just said-- it is fun, but it also makes things hard.

The essense of the game (making provisions for possible RP,) is to create a nation, run it as you see fit, and participate in politics which requires a mutually generated 'world' to discuss. Pulling out abstract references fails to be productive.

OOC- Not forcing truths in the sense that I have to accept elves, I can deal with that. That was just a careless frustrated remark. But... in matter of debate, presenting support for their arguement in form of irrefutable WoW testimony.

As far as boggling over what they just said-- it is fun, but it also makes things hard.

The essense of the game (making provisions for possible RP,) is to create a nation, run it as you see fit, and participate in politics which requires a mutually generated 'world' to discuss. Pulling out abstract references fails to be productive.

OOC: If the nation is based on WoW, then it makes sense that they would support their argument in WoW terms. Same with Star Trek races. They're going to support their argument based on Star Trek terms. Star Wars? Same. The references just aren't abstract for their nations. They're very real to them.

I can understand where it's hard at times. I've experienced that as well.

There is no "mutually generated world" situated on one globe. You can create your own worlds filled with whatever you want. Heck, I even had an alt nation full of vampire overlords at one point. The mutually generated world is more of a mutually generated "universe". It may have initially meant to be a "world", but with all the nations around, it quickly evolved. ;)

I appreciate your critique and now acknowledge the necessity to be more specific. However, I hesitate to say that I intended for 'national' governments to delegate this authority where it sees best fit in accordance with their own economic/governmental dependency, as otherwise very little would be accomplished at all.If you were to assign it to "national governments, or whichever other levels of government the relevant national laws might specify instead" then I think that should work... although I still object to this matter being the subject of international legislation.
Which seems to be the precedent here-- that all passed resolutions do very little, and that all failed proposals over-stepped the WA's authority. If we are not here to make hard decisions, why are we here?Well, I am here to represent the interests of the government and nation that sent me here.

If I am required to explicitly describe alternatives, then why would you ever imagine I meant to abolish wills? Or executors? I made no such references.It was the fact that you insisted only surviving relatives could carry out a person's post-mortem wishes in terms of funeral arrangements, which could otherwise be over-ridden by governments, that made we wonder whether you accepted the ideas of wills and exectuors: After all, if you refuse to let them function in this matter then why should I believe that you are willing to let them function in any other matters either?
This is legislation for the common good and should, open-mindedly, be interpreted as such."The law does what the law says." I will amend my final clause perhaps to be more vocal with my intentions. Good. Furthermore, when I say 'tend to the final affairs,' I certainly don't exclude working in cooperation with a church or anything else.True enough, I suppose, but there are probably some national governments around here that would take you not specifically mentioning the possibility as a WA-sanctioned permission to reject it. Citizens who opt out of these provisions are not bound by its stipulations.As long as, according to your first & second published drafts' wording, they have two surviving relatives to carry out their wishes...

Incidentally, what about non-"citizen" residents of WA member nations?

This is my first proposal so I hope everybody will accept my apology for its vague nature. Obviously I misarranged the process, but to the same effect. My next draft, or next proposal, will be better written.

As per wills and executors, I have every intention of allowing executors. Wills were never excluded, nor in my opinion made mention of either way, considering that these provisions travel to the citizens not from. Presumably the deceased would have a few extra thousand to bestow in addition to whatever else. Which is at the very heart of the matter, since it is acknowledged that in extreme circumstances families are liable for uninsured deceased.

The law does indeed do what the law says. Which means, while I must be more specific on my stipulations, I shouldn't need to expound upon the untouched.

I understand that we are all here to represent citizens and/or governments. Debate seems a needless tax if minds can not be swayed though. I have yet to see someone step to the plate and announce that, for the betterment of all, they will cast a vote against their own beliefs. Afterall, those not interested in the affairs of OTHER nations probably need not participate in the World Assembly.

As far as non-'citizens,' I set aside my own compassion to announce that they will not be covered by any provisions unless a particular Nation takes it upon themselves. Which it would be free to do. Illegal immigrants in particular may have legal citizenship elsewhere and should not be provided for twice. Furthermore, if they can not be taxed, they need not be provided for. The Rogue Nation operates under the ideal that nothing, financially speaking, is free.

Speaking as a representative of a nation with distinct socialist leanings at times, we aren't at all certain that states should take financial responsibility for funery arrangements. Perhaps it would be simpler to require states to step in where the funery arrangements cannot be funded from the estate of the deceased, or their remaining immediate family?

Speaking as a representative of a nation with distinct socialist leanings at times, we aren't at all certain that states should take financial responsibility for funery arrangements. Perhaps it would be simpler to require states to step in where the funery arrangements cannot be funded from the estate of the deceased, or their remaining immediate family?

Well put, representative! The Rogue Nation also leans towards socialism in many ways, and can fully appreciate your compromise. However, it is only addmitted to be simpler for the reason that this is, in a vast but not all-encompassing scale, the way things are handled at this very moment. Afterall, I have no personal familiarity with any Nation that allows their bankrupt deceased to lay where they fall.

What we address is the overwhelming necessity, regardless of theory, for regimented funding in this matter. In the Rogue Nation we expect a lot from our citizens and reward them accordingly. After, as I hope it can be considered, a long term in citizenship, considering the civic duties entailed ESPECIALLY for socialist nations, we propose to make dying free. We consider this, at the very least, to be their reward.

What we address is the overwhelming necessity, regardless of theory, for regimented funding in this matter. In the Rogue Nation we expect a lot from our citizens and reward them accordingly. After, as I hope it can be considered, a long term in citizenship, considering the civic duties entailed ESPECIALLY for socialist nations, we propose to make dying free. We consider this, at the very least, to be their reward.We don't "regiment" our people while they're alive -- Have you ever tried "regimenting" Bears? -- so arguments that we should do so once they've died do not appeal to us.

Unless the representative is joking, I believe he misunderstands what I've said only moments ago. I never made mention of regimenting people save for, perhaps, the socialist practices in my own Nation. And I certainly didn't say anything about bears. What I did say was that regimented funding is required-- which should be defined not in a military sense, but in an organized and all-encompassing sense.

verb (used with object) 3. to manage or treat in a rigid, uniform manner; subject to strict discipline.

And on a tangent, if I may, who runs your nation during hibernation season?

Unless the representative is joking, I believe he misunderstands what I've said only moments ago. I never made mention of regimenting people save for, perhaps, the socialist practices in my own Nation. And I certainly didn't say anything about bears. What I did say was that regimented funding is required-- which should be defined not in a military sense, but in an organized and all-encompassing sense.

verb (used with object) 3. to manage or treat in a rigid, uniform manner; subject to strict discipline.but if the people aren't "regimented" then why should the money be? And can't you see that a people as resistant to "strictness" as ours won't take kindly to being told how to handle our family matters?

And on a tangent, if I may, who runs your nation during hibernation season?Most of us don't hibernate, being able to refrain from doing so -- partly due to being better at obtaining and storing foodstuffs than are our pre-sapient relatives -- is one of the benefits that we've found our 'awakened' condition to possess.

It is presumed to be desireable to have certain financial freedoms. Of the list, I thought none would be recieved better than this. I certainly don't mean to regiment the people, though they may be taxed accordingly (since it's illegal for me to propose otherwise,) but not by me. I suspect your nation has some sort of order to it, though I certainly don't presume to tell you what it should be. Considering my allowances for compassionate governments to allow their citizens to see to their own affairs (without the financial burden accompanying,) I suspect your nation in particular will have no problem adapting to the proposal. Honestly, I don't see how this proposal presents itself as 'strict.' Again, I think you took me a little too literally when I said 'regiment.'

I suppose that was a silly question about the hibernation, hmm? I appreciate the answer all the same though. It's impressive to see you've overcome that nearly dabilitating cycle and now join us here in the WA.