[PASSED] Minimum Standard of Living Act

[Wrapper]

As long as a nation 'believes' that its economy will tank if it honestly provides the social services described herein, it may refrain to a large extent.

indeed, and a loophole like that may make this unfit for a "strong" category strength. We'd like to hear the author's opinion on this.

[Railana]

Felicia looks over the proposal
"Partially against this. Article 1 alone gives us reason to deny it, given the failed attempt at Right to Adequate Shelter. That's also not mentioning the fact that this sets no actual standard, meaning that nations can set that standard which results in this doing nothing anyway."

I don't understand the reference to Right to Adequate Shelter. Are you saying the proposal is unlikely to pass, so you don't support it?

The proposal does set a clear qualitative standard of what constitutes a "minimum standard of living". Nations who attempt to comply in good faith with this resolution will have no difficulty understanding their obligations.

"Upon further inspection, we take issue with those covered by this. We see no reason to guarantee these rights to legal permenant residents who refuse to become citizens. Our social programs are for our citizens only."

You don't feel any duty of care towards legal permanent residents?

"And what about those governments that cannot support them? What about situations where provision would be impossible, such as in mass famines? Also, couldn't you just make being poor a criminal activity to circumvent the law using §4b"

Developing countries or countries suffering from a national emergency (such as a large famine) are not expected or required to guarantee a complete minimum standard of living; that is the purpose of clause 5.

We believe that criminalizing poverty would not constitute a good faith implementation of this proposal's requirements.

"I like this version better. There should be provisions is the law that allows the state to deny assistance to those who clearly do not want to work for it, or make constant excuses why they cannot, rather will not, work to improve thier own conditions.

Such provisions already exist. Nations are not required to guarantee a minimum standard of living to individuals who "refuse to make a good faith attempt to support themselves without government assistance, or to engage in government-mandated job training, temporary employment or community service, without a legitimate reason such as a severe disability."

"You'll note that Clause 5b doesn't require that the 'good-faith belief' be correct, strictly speaking; one can subscribe to certain religions or ideologies that give you a 'good-faith belief' that, e.g., trickle-down economics actually provides more jobs and income for the lowest class of working people, despite other nations' painful experience to the contrary. The so-called 'science' of economics is one of the best at failing to alter its theoretical structure despite mountains of contrary evidence, in almost all of its forms (capitalist, communist, whatever). As long as a nation 'believes' that its economy will tank if it honestly provides the social services described herein, it may refrain to a large extent. We will not be supporting the repeal; this replacement has potential, but I'm wary so far."

Fair enough. We'll change this to a more objective standard.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Christian Democrats]

I like the draft right now. My only suggestions at the moment are minor stylistic changes:

1. In Section 3, I think the last words should say "subsidized housing, food stamps, or any combination thereof."

2. In Subsection 4(c), I think there should be a comma following the words "legitimate reason."

[John Turner]

The Federation is fully prepared to offer its full support at this time.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Since the Living Wage Act is gone, Support."

[Railana]

1. In Section 3, I think the last words should say "subsidized housing, food stamps, or any combination thereof."

2. In Subsection 4(c), I think there should be a comma following the words "legitimate reason."

Agreed.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Atomic Utopia]

"I support this resolution in the fullest. Beyond the obvious benefits to be gained by most citizens in member nations, it will prevent complete stratification. I am amazed by how er... progressive it is as compared to some of the more reactionary bills currently being drafted, and thus, as said before, support this resolution to it's fullest."

[Jarish Inyo]

Other then some beings belief that it should be done, why should a nation give hands outs to people?

[Atomic Utopia]

Other then some beings belief that it should be done, why should a nation give hands outs to people?

You know, the basics, such as not having people starving to death on the streers etc.

[Jarish Inyo]

It isn't the responsibility of the government to feed, house and provide transportation. the populace. It's the individual's responsibility to feed, house and provide transportation for themselves. There is no reason why a nation should give free handouts to able body adults. Welfare state is a drain on a nations economy.

[Separatist Peoples]

It isn't the responsibility of the government to feed, house and provide transportation. the populace. It's the individual's responsibility to feed, house and provide transportation for themselves. There is no reason why a nation should give free handouts to able body adults. Welfare state is a drain on a nations economy.

"The government doesn't have to accomplish this via welfare. They can require a minimum wage that covers these needs. A state that allows it's citizens to be controlled through denial of their needs is basically on par with slavery, as it results from the same denial of self-determination. A government that fails to protect the rights of it's citizens is failing to accomplish the very reason it exists."

[Jarish Inyo]

It's not the responsibility of a government to see to the basic needs of its citizens. Thst s for the individual to do fir themselves. It's not the responsibility of the government to provide food, shelter, utilities, money or transportation to people that are able to work and negotiate for themselves.

[Separatist Peoples]

"No, by all means, keep taking my arguments and dropping a negative qualifier in front. "Nuh-uh!" totally absolutely counts as debate.

"Thanks for making your side of the debate look like they can't articulate rational arguments, though. It promises to help pass this."

[Jarish Inyo]

Really? No one has proven that any government should provide anything in this proposal. People were able to provide housing, food, transportation, utilities, and money for themselves before the creation of minimum wage and the welfare system. And people are able to do so in places that don't have a welfare system or minimum wage.

[Normlpeople]

"The Princess believes that we, as a society, have a duty to help those who have hit on bad times. We do this through our military. We believe those who have fallen down deserve a helping hand up.

We do not believe, however, that anyone deserves a hand out, and see no reason to waste resources on those who will not attempt to better their situation. This resolution is good middle ground in that respect.

[John Turner]

It's not the responsibility of a government to see to the basic needs of its citizens.

And if all of those citizens are gone, what purpose does the government serve then? It is the responsibility of the government to protect it's citizens as the government works for the citizens, not the other way around.

[Wallenburg]

Really? No one has proven that any government should provide anything in this proposal.

Welfare ensures that people don't starve or die of easily preventable diseases. I think those goals are pretty good as government policy's bare minimum.

People were able to provide housing, food, transportation, utilities, and money for themselves before the creation of minimum wage and the welfare system.

Tell that to a serf. Or a slave. Or a factory laborer of the 19th century.

And people are able to do so in places that don't have a welfare system or minimum wage.

That is possible. It is far easier when government implements a welfare system or minimum wage.

[Flawdom]

It is our opinion that a government is not responsible for its citizens being provided a minimum outcome, only the necessary and equal opportunity to self-determine that outcome. As such, the currently enacted legislation is more than sufficient to meet our standard, so we oppose this legislation upon its own merits.

[Jarish Inyo]

Minimum wage and welfare is not protecting the citizens if a nation. It's only been the last 80 years that such concepts have existed.

People will do the bare minimum that is required for them to remain on welfare. Wanting a roof over their head and food on the table is a better motivator then being giving free housing, food, utilities, and transportation.

[Caracasus]

We have said that arguing with Ambassador Nameless is akin to placing your hand into a blender, painting your genitals bright blue and dancing round the kitchen singing your favourite show tunes whilst wearing a blindfold: Painful, pointless and a sure sign of serious mental health problems.

However, if we examine the facts, nearly every nation - even those with more of a "social Darwinist" leaning, have some provision for the very poorest, even if it just takes the form of welfare stamps and charity. We truly shudder to think of what life must be like for those unable to find work, or indeed conduct work, within his nation. We imagine that the street cleaners are issued with body bags to clean the less fortunate off the streets so the wealthy do not have to look at them on their way to work. We also note that the last 80 years have bought a higher value placed on human life, and an inclination of nations to not have people starving to death in the streets if it can possibly be avoided. This is a principle that it is hard to argue with. If you wish to argue with it, some particularly barbaric methods for human cleansing have been tried across the globe. Unfortunately these would be distinctly illegal under WA law. We also note the bizarre nature of his arguments, and find his generalisation of welfare recipients as

People (who) will do the bare minimum that is required for them to remain on welfare.

to be as grounded in reality as the rest of his arguments.

We would support either this resolution, or the one currently under draft by Wallenburg's delegation.

[Jarish Inyo]

The poorest member of my nation makes 90000 a year. We have no minimum wage, welfare or free medical for able body adults.

There is always work available. People are not willing to do it because they think they are entitled. Especially if the government will provide an income, housing, food, medical and transportation.

The citizens of my nation are not under the illusion that they are entitled to anything that they have not earned.

[John Turner]

The poorest member of my nation makes 90000 a year. We have no minimum wage, welfare or free medical for able body adults.

There is always work available. People are not willing to do it because they think they are entitled. Especially if the government will provide an income, housing, food, medical and transportation.

The citizens of my nation are not under the illusion that they are entitled to anything that they have not earned.

OOC: Anyone can use piss poor statwank to justify any position. Are you going to actually argue the merits of the draft, or are you just going to continue along with "NUH UH!", and statwankerky? If it is the latter, then I can safely ignore you.

[Valendia]

"No, by all means, keep taking my arguments and dropping a negative qualifier in front. "Nuh-uh!" totally absolutely counts as debate.

"Thanks for making your side of the debate look like they can't articulate rational arguments, though. It promises to help pass this."

Cato gives a short laugh, one eyebrow raised in amusement at the exchange.

"By all means, allow him to impoverish his citizenry. His loss in emigration is our gain in human capital."

"As others have mentioned, however, the clause concerning 'substantial and lasting harm' can be twisted in a variety of ways to negate the purposes of the main corpus of the act. Moreover, it can be argued that the need for minimum standard of living is not in fact negated but increased by troubling civil or economic circumstances - thus it is our opinion that section 5 may not be necessary."

[Jarish Inyo]

There are no merits to this proposal. Simple fact is that there are entire generations of people who live only by welfare systems. Who do just what is required of them to remain on those systems. There is always jobs to be had and too few willing to do them because the government is willing to give them everything they need to live on. A welfare system is a drain on a nations economy. Why should those who work pay for those who refuse too?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"As others have mentioned, however, the clause concerning 'substantial and lasting harm' can be twisted in a variety of ways to negate the purposes of the main corpus of the act. Moreover, it can be argued that the need for minimum standard of living is not in fact negated but increased by troubling civil or economic circumstances - thus it is our opinion that section 5 may not be necessary."

"Indeed, the best way to stave off or recover from an economic disaster is to ensure, by whatever means, that the mass of people are able to continue to pay rent and buy necessities, thus keeping both themselves and the businesses that supply such items solvent."

There are no merits to this proposal. Simple fact is that there are entire generations of people who live only by welfare systems. Who do just what is required of them to remain on those systems. There is always jobs to be had and too few willing to do them because the government is willing to give them everything they need to live on. A welfare system is a drain on a nations economy. Why should those who work pay for those who refuse too?

OOC: Can I ask you what made you pick the president of the world's best known post-scarcity social-democratic utopia for the name of your insane social darwinist hellscape? It's quite the unexpected contrast!