[WITHDRAWN] Repeal "Minimum Standard of Living Act"

[Renewed Dissonance]

"The Office of Foreign Affairs, Representative to the World Assembly of The Multitudinous Singularity of Renewed Dissonance, submits the following draft proposal for consideration and comment by its esteemed colleagues of the World Assembly."

"The Multitude are sensitive to the short amount of time that has passed since 'Minimum Standard of Living Act' was approved by the General Assembly, but We also feel strongly that 'Minimum' contains certain weaknesses that serve to threaten its otherwise laudable mission. It is from the greatest respect for the General Assembly, and the authority of its decisions produced by the common consent of the international community, that the Multitude now presents this draft to the great forum of its fellow Members:"

Repeal "Minimum Standard of Living Act"

Category: Repeal | Target: GA#344

DESCRIPTION: WA General Assembly Resolution #344: Minimum Standard of Living Act (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

ARGUMENT: The World Assembly,

Applauding the concern for those in need expressed by the World Assembly in General Assembly Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act;"

Reaffirming the duty of the international community to protect and defend the rights, liberties, and securities of all peoples everywhere;

Recognizing that Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act" contains weaknesses that potentially threaten the laudable mission of ensuring the economic rights, liberties, and securities of all persons;

Disappointed that the definition of "minimum standard of living," expressed in Part 1, fails to acknowledge the necessity of access to quality health care, which necessarily underlies these rights, liberties, and securities;

Distressed that Part 4.a. potentially allows states to exclude stateless peoples, political refugees, and others of these most economically vulnerable from the protections of a minimum standard of living;

Distraught that Part 5 allows states a blanket exception to the provisions of Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act," by claim of excessive economic damage, with no provision, mechanism or standard for weighing such claims;

Realizing that this oversight contained in Part 5 allows states an arbitrary, unilateral, and unchecked power to render Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act" without effect;

Insisting Upon immediate corrective action, to defend and achieve the worthy goal of protecting the most economically vulnerable, to secure the values for and upon which the World Assembly stands,

HEREBY REPEALS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #344 "Minimum Standard of Living Act."

Repeal "Minimum Standard of Living Act"

Category: Repeal | Target: GA#344

DESCRIPTION: WA General Assembly Resolution #344: Minimum Standard of Living Act (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

ARGUMENT: The World Assembly,

Applauding the concern for those in need expressed by the World Assembly in General Assembly Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act;"

Reaffirming the duty of the international community to protect and defend the rights, liberties, and securities of all peoples everywhere;

Recognizing that Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act" contains weaknesses that potentially threaten the laudable mission of ensuring the economic rights, liberties, and securities of all persons;

Disappointed that the definition of "minimum standard of living," expressed in Part 1, fails to acknowledge the necessity of access to quality health care, which necessarily underlies these rights, liberties, and securities;

Distressed that Part 4.a. potentially allows states to exclude stateless peoples, political refugees, and others of these most economically vulnerable whose legal immigration status is uncertain or unrecognized;

Distraught that Part 5 allows states to avoid the provisions of Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act," by claim of excessive economic damage, with no independent and objective standard for weighing such claims;

Realizing that this oversight in Part 5 risks allowing states the ability to arbitrarily render Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act" without effect;

Insisting Upon immediate corrective action, to defend and achieve the worthy goal of protecting the most economically vulnerable, to secure the values for and upon which the World Assembly stands,

HEREBY REPEALS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #344 "Minimum Standard of Living Act."

Repeal "Minimum Standard of Living Act"

Category: Repeal | Target: GA#344

DESCRIPTION: WA General Assembly Resolution #344: Minimum Standard of Living Act (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

ARGUMENT: The World Assembly,

Applauding the concern for those in need expressed by the World Assembly in General Assembly Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act;"

Reaffirming the duty of the international community to protect and defend the rights, liberties, and securities of all peoples everywhere;

Recognizing that Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act" contains weaknesses that potentially threaten the laudable mission of ensuring the economic rights, liberties, and securities of all persons;

Distressed that Part 4.a. potentially allows states to exclude stateless peoples, political refugees, and others of these most economically vulnerable whose legal immigration status is uncertain or unrecognized;

Disappointed that Part 5 allows states to avoid the provisions of Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act," by claim of excessive economic damage, with no independent and objective standard for weighing such claims;

Realizing that this oversight in Part 5 risks allowing states the ability to arbitrarily render Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act" without effect;

Insisting Upon immediate corrective action, to defend and achieve the worthy goal of protecting the most economically vulnerable, to secure the values for and upon which the World Assembly stands,

HEREBY REPEALS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #344 "Minimum Standard of Living Act."

"The Multitude are also currently drafting a replacement that We believe addresses the critiques of 'Minimum' described above; We plan to formally present this draft as well, pending insights produced by the discussion of this present matter."

"The Multitude have submitted to the forum of its fellow Members a draft replacement, Universal Access to Basic Needs, which We believe addresses the critiques of 'Minimum' described above, while retaining its general spirit and vital mission.

"Finally, the Multitude also wishes to acknowledge the contributions of The Giggling Anatrepocracy of Sierra Lyricalia to this draft repeal."

[Isle Coolidge]

"For the replacement resolution, Why not include a clause outlining a specific minimum wage standard that governments must comply with, or otherwise raise it. This way the bill can appeal to capitalist nations such as our own and more leftist nations that will support the "income inequality"roots of this resolution."

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, I already have a replacement resolution developed, titled 'Right to a Reasonable Income'. This recognizes government programs providing aid and solves the problems you find in 'MiSoLA'."

[Railana]

This repeal contains three main arguments, none of which are convincing:

Disappointed that the definition of "minimum standard of living," expressed in Part 1, fails to acknowledge the necessity of access to quality health care, which necessarily underlies these rights, liberties, and securities;

We deemed health care and education to be sufficiently complex to be dealt with in a separate resolution. Fortunately, the World Assembly has already done so.

Distressed that Part 4.a. potentially allows states to exclude stateless peoples, political refugees, and others of these most economically vulnerable from the protections of a minimum standard of living;

This isn't really true. The resolution only allows member states to exclude individuals from the minimum standard of living guarantee if a) they are neither permanent residents or citizens; b) they refuse to try to make restitution for their crimes, if any; or c) they refuse to try to support themselves without government assistance.

As such, a member state would have to provide a minimum standard of living to a stateless person or a political refugee who is lawfully resident in the country, has committed no crimes, and is trying to find a job.

Distraught that Part 5 allows states a blanket exception to the provisions of Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act," by claim of excessive economic damage, with no provision, mechanism or standard for weighing such claims;

It's not a "blanket exception". Member states who exercise the exemption in clause 5 must still guarantee a partial minimum standard of living, to the extent that they deem practicable and appropriate while remaining consistent with the object and purpose of the resolution. In other words, they're expected to do what they can.

See below for further discussion.

Realizing that this oversight contained in Part 5 allows states an arbitrary, unilateral, and unchecked power to render Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act" without effect;

I really think you're looking at this the wrong way. I agree with you that a member state who actively seeks to evade their responsibilities under a resolution will probably find a way to do so. But World Assembly resolutions are not written to address this sort of issue. They're not laws or statutes in the traditional sense. There is no World Assembly law enforcement agency that polices member state compliance, and member states cannot be compelled to obey resolutions under threat of force.

This is because World Assembly membership is voluntary. Trying to enforce resolutions is pointless, because member states can simply resign from the organization at any time. As such, World Assembly resolutions are simply expressions of the will of the international community. The World Assembly assumes that its members actually want to act in accordance with the international community and will therefore interpret resolutions in good faith. Your argument doesn't make any sense in this context.

Don't misunderstand me - it's definitely important to have well-written, precise resolutions so that there is no ambiguity about what the international community expects of individual member states, especially since the text of resolutions is all we have to go on to determine this. But it's pretty clear what the Minimum Standard of Living Act expects of member states, and states who abuse the clause 5 exemption will not be interpreting the resolution in good faith.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Renewed Dissonance]

"For the replacement resolution, Why not include a clause outlining a specific minimum wage standard that governments must comply with, or otherwise raise it. This way the bill can appeal to capitalist nations such as our own and more leftist nations that will support the "income inequality"roots of this resolution."

"Colleague,

"The draft repeal presented here by the Multitudinious Singularity does not include a critique concerning a specific minimum wage standard for what we feel are good reasons. We feel that a minimum wage is distinct from that of a minimum standard of living as the former pertains to the right to market bargaining power (which increases with wage) versus the right to bargain on that market to begin with. Access to a high wage is without particular utility, if, for instance, quality health care, housing, clean water and such are generally unavailable to begin with.

"This latter area is that which we seek here.

"Although, you may have illustrated a further issue with "Minimum," in that its Part 3 appears to assume aspects of a "minimum standard of living" which are not actually included explicitly in the definition of that term (in Part 1). This may serve to confuse exactly what it is the resolution addresses or requires."

[Isle Coolidge]

"For the replacement resolution, Why not include a clause outlining a specific minimum wage standard that governments must comply with, or otherwise raise it. This way the bill can appeal to capitalist nations such as our own and more leftist nations that will support the "income inequality"roots of this resolution."

"Colleague,

"The draft repeal presented here by the Multitudinious Singularity does not include a critique concerning a specific minimum wage standard for what we feel are good reasons. We feel that a minimum wage is distinct from that of a minimum standard of living as the former pertains to the right to market bargaining power (which increases with wage) versus the right to bargain on that market to begin with. Access to a high wage is without particular utility, if, for instance, quality health care, housing, clean water and such are generally unavailable to begin with.

"This latter area is that which we seek here.

"Although, you may have illustrated a further issue with "Minimum," in that its Part 3 appears to assume aspects of a "minimum standard of living" which are not actually included explicitly in the definition of that term (in Part 1). This may serve to confuse exactly what it is the resolution addresses or requires."

"I was referring to your replacement proposal, Basic Standard of Living."

[Renewed Dissonance]

"Ambassador, I already have a replacement resolution developed, titled 'Right to a Reasonable Income'. This recognizes government programs providing aid and solves the problems you find in 'MiSoLA'."

"Colleague, the Multitude is presently reviewing "Right to a Reasonable Income" and will direct its comments to that discussion momentarily"

[Ardortia]

Disappointed that the definition of "minimum standard of living," expressed in Part 1, fails to acknowledge the necessity of access to quality health care, which necessarily underlies these rights, liberties, and securities;

We deemed health care and education to be sufficiently complex to be dealt with in a separate resolution. Fortunately, the World Assembly has already done so.

Could you make it clearer on how your resolution helps citizens afford healthcare more?

This isn't really true. The resolution only allows member states to exclude individuals from the minimum standard of living guarantee if a) they are neither permanent residents or citizens; b) they refuse to try to make restitution for their crimes, if any; or c) they refuse to try to support themselves without government assistance.

As such, a member state would have to provide a minimum standard of living to a stateless person or a political refugee who is lawfully resident in the country, has committed no crimes, and is trying to find a job.

Which is, what I think his point is. The resolution thus doesn't provide any assistance to stateless people or political refugees if a nation refuses to allow them lawful entry — even though they need it. That is a concrete social bad.

I really think you're looking at this the wrong way. I agree with you that a member state who actively seeks to evade their responsibilities under a resolution will probably find a way to do so. But World Assembly resolutions are not written to address this sort of issue. They're not laws or statutes in the traditional sense. There is no World Assembly law enforcement agency that polices member state compliance, and member states cannot be compelled to obey resolutions under threat of force.

There has been such a system (ICC) and there can be again.

This is because World Assembly membership is voluntary. Trying to enforce resolutions is pointless, because member states can simply resign from the organization at any time. As such, World Assembly resolutions are simply expressions of the will of the international community. The World Assembly assumes that its members actually want to act in accordance with the international community and will therefore interpret resolutions in good faith. Your argument doesn't make any sense in this context.

Which isn't entirely realistic, because nations may also want to be in the World Assembly whilst also not following its edicts. This is a situation which exists.

Don't misunderstand me - it's definitely important to have well-written, precise resolutions so that there is no ambiguity about what the international community expects of individual member states, especially since the text of resolutions is all we have to go on to determine this. But it's pretty clear what the Minimum Standard of Living Act expects of member states, and states who abuse the clause 5 exemption will not be interpreting the resolution in good faith.

When have nations ever acted entirely in good faith?

[Renewed Dissonance]

Ambassador Fulton,

The Multitudinious Singularity, first and foremost, wishes to acknowledge the contribution you and Railana have made to the international community, and specifically to the plight of the most economically vulnerable. Your continued attention to this goal further enhances the respect in which the Multitude holds you and your peoples.

However,

We deemed health care and education to be sufficiently complex to be dealt with in a separate resolution. Fortunately, the World Assembly has already done so.

"The Multitude agrees that health care is a highly complex topic deserving of special and direct attention. But, as we also believe, reaffirming the necessity of access to quality health care is fundamental to any definition of 'standard of living.'

"This is especially so where the strength of such reaffirmation in previously passed resolutions, like GA#97, might fall into question. Resolutions which restrain the World Assembly in its duty to ensure the health of all the worlds people, unless 'if, and only if, so asked' to do otherwise, not only undercut the legitimate authority of this most august institution, but also leave in question its ability to see to the health of the most vulnerable at all.

"As such, the Multitude must insist on a stronger and more explicit statement as to the necessity of health care in any consideration of standards of living.

"The Multitude concedes, pending further analysis by Our Foreign Office, that previous resolutions regarding education do not necessarily suffer from the same weakness."

This isn't really true. The resolution only allows member states to exclude individuals from the minimum standard of living guarantee if...they are neither permanent residents or citizens;...As such, a member state would have to provide a minimum standard of living to a stateless person or a political refugee who is lawfully resident in the country

"The Multitude will focus on this specific part of your previous comments, as they most closely pertain to the argument of the draft under discussion here.

"At first consideration, it may well seem perfectly just to limit the requirements of 'Minimum' to Member State's specific citizens and legal residents. However, by the very definition of the concepts, whether stateless peoples or political refugees retain either status is highly questionable. Indeed, even as a Member State implements its normal immigration and naturalization process in order to answer that question in specific instances, will or will not 'Minimum' apply? We respectfully suggest that answers to this question are likely to vary as widely as individual Member State's specific national laws -- and, indeed, will be frequently answered in the negative.

"Unless international law already provides otherwise, the Multitude must most strongly insist that stateless peoples and refugees be permitted the specific and explicit dignity of a basic standard of living until, at the very least,their citizenship status can be more concretely determined.

"Afterall, it is only certain that 'Minimum' provides for stateless peoples and refugees, if, and only if the stateless or refugee actually are considered by individual Member States to enjoy a legal status. Thus it is vital to ensure an explicit statement of status."

It's not a "blanket exception". Member states who exercise the exemption in clause 5 must still guarantee a partial minimum standard of living, to the extent that they deem practicable and appropriate while remaining consistent with the object and purpose of the resolution. In other words, they're expected to do what they can.

"The Multitude will reconsider whether the specific wording used in the draft ('blanket exception') is too strong. This may, in fact, be the case; Indeed, our own draft replacement also leaves room for a Member State to make independent judgments concerning the level of a standard of living that it is capable of actually supporting. Of course, such practical concerns cannot be ignored.

"However, without strong statements concerning which specific situations allow for these considerations to be made, leaving the determination of what constitutes 'practicable and appropriate' levels entirely to Member States alone only invites abuse."

Trying to enforce resolutions is pointless, because member states can simply resign from the organization at any time. As such, World Assembly resolutions are simply expressions of the will of the international community. The World Assembly assumes that its members actually want to act in accordance with the international community and will therefore interpret resolutions in good faith. Your argument doesn't make any sense in this context.

"If Member States genuinely want to act in accordance with the international community, there is no harm in stating the terms and requirements of that accordance in the strongest possible terms. At any rate, since the World Assembly does indeed lack direct mechanisms of enforcement, the only remaining means are those of rhetoric, persuasion, and social standing among peers. These mechanisms require strong resolutions to be effective.

"To do otherwise, to simply concede to the viewpoint that 'we shall all do as we like anyway,' is to take away any social or moral authority that international law might possess at all. All nations of the world may as well resign.

"At the very least, the Multitude respectfully suggests that a more explicit description of specific situations (and the standards by which they are measured) justifying partial but good-faith implementations of standards of living are required."

EDIT @ ~2:08 UTC: out-of-character commentary retracted.

[Renewed Dissonance]

"Colleague,

"The draft repeal presented here by the Multitudinious Singularity does not include a critique concerning a specific minimum wage standard for what we feel are good reasons. We feel that a minimum wage is distinct from that of a minimum standard of living as the former pertains to the right to market bargaining power (which increases with wage) versus the right to bargain on that market to begin with. Access to a high wage is without particular utility, if, for instance, quality health care, housing, clean water and such are generally unavailable to begin with.

"This latter area is that which we seek here.

"Although, you may have illustrated a further issue with "Minimum," in that its Part 3 appears to assume aspects of a "minimum standard of living" which are not actually included explicitly in the definition of that term (in Part 1). This may serve to confuse exactly what it is the resolution addresses or requires."

"I was referring to your replacement proposal, Basic Standard of Living."

"The Multitude appreciates your intentions. Ours was to explain why we believe a living wage, and a minimum standard of living, are best addressed in separate resolutions. They are certainly not unrelated, but they nonetheless touch upon distinct concepts with their distinct considerations.

"This is why Basic Standard of Living, once formally presented, will likely not contain language specifically about a minimum or living wage.

"Addendum: The Multitude are also considering the potential compatibility of Basic with "Right to a Reasonable Income," proposed by Our colleague from Wallenburg."

[Renewed Dissonance]

Which is, what I think his point is. The resolution thus doesn't provide any assistance to stateless people or political refugees if a nation refuses to allow them lawful entry — even though they need it. That is a concrete social bad.

"Indeed. 'Minimum' sees to the needs of stateless persons and refugees only if it is assumed that these, among the most vulnerable, are granted legal status to begin with.

"This is an extremely dangerous assumption, given the frequency with which it is likely to be wrong."

[Renewed Dissonance]

"Upon further consideration, Colleagues, in light of our conversation with the delegation from Isle Coolidge, the Multitude has decided to reclassify its draft replacement, 'Basic Standard of Living,' placing it now in the Human Rights category.

"This action was taken for two reasons:

"First, We feel this more accurately reflects the purpose and intent of 'Basic,' especially in light of its Non-Discrimination clause, which emphasizes the rights of the peoples of the world, and the obligation of governments to respect and defend them.

"Second, We also feel that this better situates 'Basic' to stand in conjunction with and support 'Right to a Reasonable Income,' currently being re-drafted by the delegation from Wallenburg. We are interested in an assessment of the possibility that both draft proposals can effectively replace 'Minimum Standard of Living Act' from perspectives emphasizing both Social Justice and Human Rights."

[Normlpeople]

"If you have a draft, post it within these halls. I, as do many ambassadors, make it a point to not support anything that isn't properly debated.

As to this draft, the 'good faith interpretation' requirement, noted in previously passed legislation, would seem to take care of your primary argument, that being abuse of the emergency clause. As already stated, those who seek not to comply will find ways to do so anyway. The other two are non-arguments to begin with, as we are not required to, nor do we allow, statelessness or illegal refugees into our territory, and those that do would deal with them accordingly. The mention of health care is already dealt with in another draft, doing so in this would be illegal. I do not support your repeal any more than to poison the well on this type of legislation."

[Renewed Dissonance]

"Ambassador,

"If you have a draft, post it within these halls. I, as do many ambassadors, make it a point to not support anything that isn't properly debated.

"Assuming one refers to the replacement proposal currently being drafted by the Multitudinous Singularity Foreign Office, We would entirely agree; We would never submit a proposal directly to the WA Delegates without first posting it here for debate. Some have seen fit to disrespect this institution and its Members by avoiding debate and discussion; The Multitude does not endorse or support any such action.

"Posting of our draft replacement will take place following receipt of a response from the delegation from Wallenburg concerning its possible relationship with that delegations own draft currently under consideration.

"In the mean time, Our draft repeal of 'Minimum,' which exists and is capable of standing on its own regardless of any future replacement, has been posted here for debate, in accordance with standard practice and out of respect for this institution and its Members."

As to this draft, the 'good faith interpretation' requirement, noted in previously passed legislation, would seem to take care of your primary argument, that being abuse of the emergency clause. As already stated, those who seek not to comply will find ways to do so anyway.

"We simply reiterate our position: the solution to non-compliance is not to concede, as this undermines the whole point and purpose of this august institution. If no one actually expects compliance, we should all simply resign.

"If we actually do expect compliance, then our resolutions should reflect that belief."

The other two are non-arguments to begin with, as we are not required to, nor do we allow, statelessness or illegal refugees into our territory, and those that do would deal with them accordingly.

"Again, one appears to fall back on the argument that states need not actually comply, in good faith, with the spirit of resolutions as approved by the World Assembly -- after all, "...we are not required to..." do anything in particular. One wonders what the point of Membership actually is.

"We submit this attitude as further evidence against 'Minimum,' that good-faith expectations concerning the spirit of international law will only be met with the intransigence of the free rider who will refuse to cooperate while others more right-minded and faithful to justice are forced to bear the burden alone.

"The simple fact of the matter is that 'Minimum' abandons the stateless and refugee by allowing Member States to reject from coverage anyone not meeting an insufficiently defined immigration status. 'Minimum' cannot claim to improve the plight of the world's disadvantaged while simultaneously condemning a significant proportion of those disadvantaged to continued and unchallenged impoverishment."

I do not support your repeal any more than to poison the well on this type of legislation."

"The Multitude is honored to oppose your position, Ambassador, regardless of the outcome."

[Renewed Dissonance]

"The Multitude have updated the present draft, altering the language of the 5th, 6th, and 7th clauses of its argument, in light of comments received so far by our esteemed colleagues.

"The previous version remains for comparison purposes."

[Renewed Dissonance]

OOC: One bump, for final draft and comments/arguments before submission.

[98X]

I openly opposed the Act in question on the RMB for The Rejected Realms. However, I would like to see it replaced with: nothing. Let's let the members of the World Assembly decide what is provided to the inhabitants of their nations, it may result in provisions and ideas that are stifled by the current Act, and would continue to be stifled by any such replacement regulation.

[Renewed Dissonance]

I openly opposed the Act in question on the RMB for The Rejected Realms.

OOC: I'm very new to this, but my understanding is that gameside mechanics are generally considered out-of-bounds for in-character roleplay in the WA. Yet I've seen regions and such referred to by name during in-character conversation here (I think). Can someone clarify? It feels very likely I'm missing something.

IC:

"Ambassador,

However, I would like to see it replaced with: nothing. Let's let the members of the World Assembly decide what is provided to the inhabitants of their nations, it may result in provisions and ideas that are stifled by the current Act, and would continue to be stifled by any such replacement regulation.

"The Multitude wishes to reiterate that it does not oppose the general spirit, the concern for the world's most vulnerable, expressed by 'Minimum.' It seeks, with this draft repeal, only to correct what it believes to be serious problems in that resolution that weaken that laudable resolve. The Multitude invites the Ambassador to follow the link in Our original message above to the draft replacement, as this might be a more helpful venue for discussing such a replacement."

[Ossitania]

Distraught that Part 5 allows states a blanket exception to the provisions of Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act," by claim of excessive economic damage, with no provision, mechanism or standard for weighing such claims;

Realizing that this oversight contained in Part 5 allows states an arbitrary, unilateral, and unchecked power to render Resolution #344: "Minimum Standard of Living Act" without effect;

Here are the alternatives to this exception you find so objectionable:

1. Do as you have done in your draft resolution and limit the circumstances to times of war or disaster. Great, so now nations in economic crisis are required to drive themselves into the ground because they can't reduce spending on basic provisions to direct funds elsewhere, including to those areas that may help hasten the end of the crisis. Even if a caucus of the nation's poor voted unilaterally to accept a temporary reduction in services in exchange for a long-term economic return, member-states would not be permitted to do so. No, you're so dedicated to making sure we secure these minimum standards, you're willing to guarantee they collapse in the future as long as you can have them for at least one brief moment in the present. Bravo.

2. Subsidise the spending via the General Fund, in which case the resolution either never makes quorum, never passes or survives maybe three seconds before a repeal because no one wants to bankroll other people's welfare, especially when a corrupt government can just cook the books so it looks like they can't afford to do it and claim money from the General Fund while enriching themselves by embezzling the money they've disappeared from the books. I bet that'll go down great.

3. Develop some convoluted system to measure ability to provide basic services according to which nations will or won't be permitted to reduce spending. If it's too vague, people will still be able to exploit the system. If it's too specific, people will fall through the cracks because the only definition robust enough to accommodate all worthy cases will also be vague so it can err on the side of caution in guaranteeing no one who deserves relief will be left unrelieved, thus allowing people to exploit the system. Now you've got the same problems, except you've wasted months trying to come up with an imaginary fix.

The fourth option is, of course, not to repeal the resolution in place, because it's the best resolution on the topic anyone has written so far. If someone comes up with a better one and some convincing reasons to repeal this one and replace it with a new one, I'll definitely jump on board. But I've read your resolution, and it's not the better resolution. We already have the better resolution, so leave it alone.

[Renewed Dissonance]

"Ambassador,

Here are the alternatives to this exception you find so objectionable:

1. Do as you have done in your draft resolution and limit the circumstances to times of war or disaster. Great, so now nations in economic crisis are required to drive themselves into the ground because they can't reduce spending on basic provisions to direct funds elsewhere, including to those areas that may help hasten the end of the crisis. Even if a caucus of the nation's poor voted unilaterally to accept a temporary reduction in services in exchange for a long-term economic return, member-states would not be permitted to do so. No, you're so dedicated to making sure we secure these minimum standards, you're willing to guarantee they collapse in the future as long as you can have them for at least one brief moment in the present. Bravo.

2. Subsidise the spending via the General Fund, in which case the resolution either never makes quorum, never passes or survives maybe three seconds before a repeal because no one wants to bankroll other people's welfare, especially when a corrupt government can just cook the books so it looks like they can't afford to do it and claim money from the General Fund while enriching themselves by embezzling the money they've disappeared from the books. I bet that'll go down great.

3. Develop some convoluted system to measure ability to provide basic services according to which nations will or won't be permitted to reduce spending. If it's too vague, people will still be able to exploit the system. If it's too specific, people will fall through the cracks because the only definition robust enough to accommodate all worthy cases will also be vague so it can err on the side of caution in guaranteeing no one who deserves relief will be left unrelieved, thus allowing people to exploit the system. Now you've got the same problems, except you've wasted months trying to come up with an imaginary fix.

The fourth option is, of course, not to repeal the resolution in place, because it's the best resolution on the topic anyone has written so far. If someone comes up with a better one and some convincing reasons to repeal this one and replace it with a new one, I'll definitely jump on board. But I've read your resolution, and it's not the better resolution. We already have the better resolution, so leave it alone.

"First, the Multitude would respectfully note that the version of the draft quoted has been depricated in favor of new language. Secondly, the ghastly specter of the Multitude's supposed desire to damn the world's poor to everlasting 'communist'-inspired hellfire has already been raised, responded to, and, apparently, rescinded in the thread of discussion specifically reserved for our draft replacement. As such, the Multitude respectfully suggests that continued discussion along those lines be redirected there.

"However, the Multitude also respectfully suggest that the Ambassador indulge in a nap first."

[Ossitania]

"Ambassador,

Here are the alternatives to this exception you find so objectionable:

1. Do as you have done in your draft resolution and limit the circumstances to times of war or disaster. Great, so now nations in economic crisis are required to drive themselves into the ground because they can't reduce spending on basic provisions to direct funds elsewhere, including to those areas that may help hasten the end of the crisis. Even if a caucus of the nation's poor voted unilaterally to accept a temporary reduction in services in exchange for a long-term economic return, member-states would not be permitted to do so. No, you're so dedicated to making sure we secure these minimum standards, you're willing to guarantee they collapse in the future as long as you can have them for at least one brief moment in the present. Bravo.

2. Subsidise the spending via the General Fund, in which case the resolution either never makes quorum, never passes or survives maybe three seconds before a repeal because no one wants to bankroll other people's welfare, especially when a corrupt government can just cook the books so it looks like they can't afford to do it and claim money from the General Fund while enriching themselves by embezzling the money they've disappeared from the books. I bet that'll go down great.

3. Develop some convoluted system to measure ability to provide basic services according to which nations will or won't be permitted to reduce spending. If it's too vague, people will still be able to exploit the system. If it's too specific, people will fall through the cracks because the only definition robust enough to accommodate all worthy cases will also be vague so it can err on the side of caution in guaranteeing no one who deserves relief will be left unrelieved, thus allowing people to exploit the system. Now you've got the same problems, except you've wasted months trying to come up with an imaginary fix.

The fourth option is, of course, not to repeal the resolution in place, because it's the best resolution on the topic anyone has written so far. If someone comes up with a better one and some convincing reasons to repeal this one and replace it with a new one, I'll definitely jump on board. But I've read your resolution, and it's not the better resolution. We already have the better resolution, so leave it alone.

"First, the Multitude would respectfully note that the version of the draft quoted has been depricated in favor of new language. Secondly, the ghastly specter of the Multitude's supposed desire to damn the world's poor to everlasting 'communist'-inspired hellfire has already been raised, responded to, and, apparently, rescinded in the thread of discussion specifically reserved for our draft replacement. As such, the Multitude respectfully suggests that continued discussion along those lines be redirected there.

"However, the Multitude also respectfully suggest that the Ambassador indulge in a nap first."

Yeah, I'm not as easily pleased as the ferret people, and I'm not gonna redirect anything (though I've already hit you there, enjoy reading).

If you're gonna include the economic crisis exception as an argument in your repeal, you need to explain what should have been done instead and actually demonstrate that it's better than what GA #344, otherwise you need to drop it, though that would, of course, leave you with basically nothing in your repeal, since people do not care as much about the stateless and refugees as they care about people dodging the law, and certainly not enough to repeal on that basis alone, so I suspect you're gonna keep your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand.

But, apart from that, a few notes. First of all, the word is "deprecate", if you're gonna use a thesaurus, use a dictionary. Second of all, I didn't call you a communist (I resent the accusation that your pissant replacement even vaguely resembles the product of any ideology that so much as claims to care for the poor), so you should consider responding to my specific arguments rather than pretending I've just parroted the ambassador from Normlpeople. Third of all, just so we're extra clear, I don't think you're a communist, I think you're incompetent.

Finally, if you're going to dismiss Railana's arguments because they're the author of the target resolution and carry an implicit bias, as well as ideological baggage, then you should take mine extra seriously because Railana and I have a years-long history of almost never seeing eye-to-eye about anything and I'm still telling you their resolution is superior, that it shouldn't be repealed, and even if it were to be repealed, it shouldn't be replaced with the muck you've written. Take a hint and, while you're at it, take a nap, I think you need it more than me.

[Renewed Dissonance]

"The Multitudinous Singularity of Renewed Dissonance hereby withdraws its draft for consideration and discussion. Accordingly, it will no longer pursue submission to the General Assembly."

[Wallenburg]

Would you like our delegation to continue this effort and build off of your current draft?