[DRAFT] SBP Reservation Act

[Separatist Peoples]

"Not all nation use ratios to determine welfare participation."

Well all nations really don't do anything, because the whole game is actually a great big role play and well you are really going off subject to say that your nation doesn't use ratios

OOC:...I think you should spend more time debating in other threads before attempting to draft. Maybe then you'll get the chance to learn how the Roleplaying and GA resolutions actually work instead of simply assuming.

[Polinasia]

Well all nations really don't do anything, because the whole game is actually a great big role play and well you are really going off subject to say that your nation doesn't use ratios

OOC:...I think you should spend more time debating in other threads before attempting to draft. Maybe then you'll get the chance to learn how the Roleplaying and GA resolutions actually work instead of simply assuming.

Then I may ask could you please educate me on the subject, I ask for just a brief summary. Thank you.

[Defwa]

Your definition of "socially backwards' makes it apparent that your motivation is racist and ableist.
I suppose we're all fortunate you're not mandating these subhumans be required to take these jobs. Of course were this to pass, that might as well be what happens- it gives license to nations to draft undesirables into psuedo slavery because if they don't, their government may not be able to function.

You're addressing this from the wrong direction and the fact that you start this with a definition that mandates the segregation of the elderly, the disabled, and whatever race a government has a grudge against is a poor sign regarding your preparedness to undertake this challenge.

[Polinasia]

Your definition of "socially backwards' makes it apparent that your motivation is racist and ableist.
I suppose we're all fortunate you're not mandating these subhumans be required to take these jobs. Of course were this to pass, that might as well be what happens- it gives license to nations to draft undesirables into psuedo slavery because if they don't, their government may not be able to function.

You're addressing this from the wrong direction and the fact that you start this with a definition that mandates the segregation of the elderly, the disabled, and whatever race a government has a grudge against is a poor sign regarding your preparedness to undertake this challenge.

I really don't mean any of the things you said and I am willing to make changes to my proposal so that it isn't so.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: The problem is you are trying to tackle too much. What your proposal comes down to is "poverty is bad". That's a huge topic area. Proposals are best when they are tightly focus to tackle one single problem. And if once that's passed, there's still more to do? Well, we pass another proposal. We're not running out of ideas! This is why most general "give everyone human rights", "stop all pollution", "give peace a chance" type proposals are doomed: the ideas may be nice but they're simply too expansive to have merit.

I would recommend picking one single aspect of your proposal, whether it's access to education, or distribution of food welfare, or public transit subsidies, or something else, and concentrating solely on that. It will be much easier to deal with as opposed to being encumbered by an omnibus WA welfare package.

[Polinasia]

OOC: The problem is you are trying to tackle too much. What your proposal comes down to is "poverty is bad". That's a huge topic area. Proposals are best when they are tightly focus to tackle one single problem. And if once that's passed, there's still more to do? Well, we pass another proposal. We're not running out of ideas! This is why most general "give everyone human rights", "stop all pollution", "give peace a chance" type proposals are doomed: the ideas may be nice but they're simply too expansive to have merit.

I would recommend picking one single aspect of your proposal, whether it's access to education, or distribution of food welfare, or public transit subsidies, or something else, and concentrating solely on that. It will be much easier to deal with as opposed to being encumbered by an omnibus WA welfare package.

that's a more interesting advice, I think my next draft will focus on one part of it.

[Fortschrin]

Also, note that some nations may not have a poverty line, which would effectively invalidate your definition of "socially backward" and the proposal in general. If you do propose this, I suggest you re-word that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

a. 20% of Government jobs should be reserved for the socially backward of society.

Why should the economically backward be given government positions? Why not the educated and the persons who are actually... qualified for positions?

b. Government Schools, Colleges and Universities should have special decreased fee for socially backward students.

They should have a decreased fee? Is this an operative clause or no? Also, in a state of undeveloped nations, it seems that you are presuming here that there even are universities.

c. Special train, bus and other transport fair should be introduced for the socially backward population.

This Assembly is no centre for platitudes. Please make operative clauses, not platitudes. Now, if you wanted to say that 'The World Assembly hereby— ... Mandates the extension of infrastructure projects into low-income communities', that would at least be more clear. I have no objection to infrastructure programmes in undeveloped areas of the globe. The question then is: Who will pay for it? Who will design it? What will it do?

d. The minimum food items required by the population should be distributed at low cost to the socially backward through government ration shops.

Why does the government have to set up ration shops for this? What is the issue with the private sector accepting government coupons, like how the US runs the SNAP programme?

2.Defines Socially Backward Population as: The part of the population of a nation who are below poverty and are progressing comparatively slow in society and unable to deal with the increasing demands on society like price rise, Technological advancements due to their economic conditions and are Underdeveloped ;[/box]

Put this first. Define your terms, then say your operative clauses. Secondarily, this definition is rambling and practically incoherent, since it ends up referring to itself. You shouldn't say 'socially backward', then immediately switch to economic issues. I'm not sure why you say that inabilities to deal with inflation (i.e. rises in price level), which, by the way, affects everyone; technological progress; the fact that they are undeveloped (i.e. a circular definition) are issues.

---

I don't see how approaching this from a top-down perspective, namely, more welfare (when there is presumably no economic base to support it) and wealth distribution could possibly alleviate poverty. If this is regarding third-world countries, which I presume it is, because you include a section on infrastructure programmes, then it should focus on reforming the government and building infrastructure/health, not creating a welfare state in a place where it is unsustainable.

[Polinasia]

a. 20% of Government jobs should be reserved for the socially backward of society.

Why should the economically backward be given government positions? Why not the educated and the persons who are actually... qualified for positions?

b. Government Schools, Colleges and Universities should have special decreased fee for socially backward students.

They should have a decreased fee? Is this an operative clause or no? Also, in a state of undeveloped nations, it seems that you are presuming here that there even are universities.

c. Special train, bus and other transport fair should be introduced for the socially backward population.

This Assembly is no centre for platitudes. Please make operative clauses, not platitudes. Now, if you wanted to say that 'The World Assembly hereby— ... Mandates the extension of infrastructure projects into low-income communities', that would at least be more clear. I have no objection to infrastructure programmes in undeveloped areas of the globe. The question then is: Who will pay for it? Who will design it? What will it do?

d. The minimum food items required by the population should be distributed at low cost to the socially backward through government ration shops.

Why does the government have to set up ration shops for this? What is the issue with the private sector accepting government coupons, like how the US runs the SNAP programme?

2.Defines Socially Backward Population as: The part of the population of a nation who are below poverty and are progressing comparatively slow in society and unable to deal with the increasing demands on society like price rise, Technological advancements due to their economic conditions and are Underdeveloped ;[/box]

Put this first. Define your terms, then say your operative clauses. Secondarily, this definition is rambling and practically incoherent, since it ends up referring to itself. You shouldn't say 'socially backward', then immediately switch to economic issues. I'm not sure why you say that inabilities to deal with inflation (i.e. rises in price level), which, by the way, affects everyone; technological progress; the fact that they are undeveloped (i.e. a circular definition) are issues.

---

I don't see how approaching this from a top-down perspective, namely, more welfare (when there is presumably no economic base to support it) and wealth distribution could possibly alleviate poverty. If this is regarding third-world countries, which I presume it is, because you include a section on infrastructure programmes, then it should focus on reforming the government and building infrastructure/health, not creating a welfare state in a place where it is unsustainable.

Well I was refering to the underdevelvoped of every nation not third world countries.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Then address these extremely disparate situations separately.

[Polinasia]

Then address these extremely disparate situations separately.

You mean to write a part where I exclude the third world countries from this act?

[Imperium Anglorum]

No, address the infrastructure and the other stuff independently. There are some sections which are only applicable to some economic environments and other sections to other economic environments. Don't try to pass a one-size-fits-all bill.

[Polinasia]

No, address the infrastructure and the other stuff independently. There are some sections which are only applicable to some economic environments and other sections to other economic environments. Don't try to pass a one-size-fits-all bill.

I feel like I should completely drop this, because I seem totally confused?

[Bears Armed]

As currently worded, doesn't this contradict the CoCR by advocating discrimination on the basis of an arbitrary and divisive categorization?