[PASSED] Minimum Standard of Living Act

[Miridia]

The exit is down the hall and to the left. Please leave your WA credentials at the security desk and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

As the spokesman for the Glorious leader of Urlskate himself I'd tell you to be more considerate to your fellow WA member. You'd be wise to find some of the magnanimous leaders benevolence instead of trying to kick someone out by words for wanting to repeal acts the Ambassador believes isn't good for his people, or bottom line.

You socialists are all the same, espousing love, equality and welfare to everyone's faces while flying into a rage when a nation disagrees with you. You'd learn well to follow the most intelligent leaders invisible hand.

Here, here! The Republic of Miridia will not vote in favor for this resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

From: Foreign Office, Greyhall
To: World Assembly Headquarters

Absent a last-minute shift in the position of Europe's voters, the Democratic Empire, acting as Europe's delegate, will be moving to a favourable vote on this proposal. We find this exceedingly unfortunate for the reasons outlined in our dispatch to the floor dated a few days ago. However, duty must be done, and in this case, the stench borne.

Regrettably,

[Flawdom]

OOC: Not one insta-repeal? Interesting

[The Candy Of Bottles]

OOC: Not one insta-repeal? Interesting

Actually...

[The Polk State]

This 'resolution' is no resolution at all, but yet another example of the General Assembly's attempts to act as an unregulated, unrestricted legislative body. Friends, the General Assembly is not an unrestricted world legislature.

More importantly, however, this resolution attempts to compel unwilling sovereign nations to comply with Socialist policies.

The Polk State has been disappointing in the World Assembly with it's several most recent proposals, which caused the Polk State to recently pass ordinance to 'opt out' of complying with any World Assembly resolutions we feel to transgress upon the population's moral principle or the states independence.

Polk and American representatives seem to be the only one's standing up for their principles, which may be described only as 'disgusting'.

[Wallenburg]

This 'resolution' is no resolution at all

"Actually it is. What makes it not a resolution?"

but yet another example of the General Assembly's attempts to act as an unregulated, unrestricted legislative body.

"Ambassador, that is called a resolution."

Friends, the General Assembly is not an unrestricted world legislature.

"Yes, it is. The only regulations on it are self-imposed, and theoretically removable, although the major ones never will be."

More importantly, however, this resolution attempts to compel unwilling sovereign nations to comply with Socialist policies.

"'Socialist' is questionable, but otherwise this is entirely true. And it is entirely within the World Assembly's power to do so."

The Polk State has been disappointing in the World Assembly with it's several most recent proposals, which caused the Polk State to recently pass ordinance to 'opt out' of complying with any World Assembly resolutions we feel to transgress upon the population's moral principle or the states independence.

"You don't get to 'opt out'. If you don't like World Assembly policy, you can resign. Otherwise, these international laws are sovereign over your nation, and any attempt to defy their measures is a crime in of itself. Your government is one of criminals. I shall therefore call security to have you arrested."

Polk and American representatives seem to be the only one's standing up for their principles, which may be described only as 'disgusting'.

"I'm standing up for my principles by voting for this resolution, as are the majority of voters on this resolution. Do not speak foolishness."

[The Polk State]

It is no resolution because it does not solve the problem at all.

It is not the right of an intergovernmental organization to make bills that should be made at the national level.

I is not their right to force people to comply with policies that infringe on the beliefs of their people. There is a reason a one-world government cannot work, and that is that the world is too large, with too many different regions and too many different opinions.

The Polk State has the intention to make a difference, and this remains in membership of the World Assembly. The policy of the Polk State and it's relation with the World Assembly remains under review and continues to be subject to much debate in state congress.

[Normlpeople]

"You don't get to 'opt out'. If you don't like World Assembly policy, you can resign. Otherwise, these international laws are sovereign over your nation, and any attempt to defy their measures is a crime in of itself. Your government is one of criminals. I shall therefore call security to have you arrested."

"Now now, he does have the right to expression, that isn't enough to paint anyone as guilty. His blatant admission of his governments intention to ignore its obligations under international law is enough for us to disregard anything they say as credible however.

I ask the Polk delegation, did you miss your obligations memo when you signed up for this organization? You must comply with international law, if you dont like it, then membership is voluntary and resignation is an option at any time.

I love this 'Democracy' nonsense many nations hold so dear. Especially the part where its the 'will of the people' . Until your side doesn't win that is, and then its somehow not. One of its many, many flaws.

Our trade sanctions list is growing nicely with this debate."

OOC: Your laws automatically change to comply, as your telegram after passing will tell you. Your stats automatically change, you're in compliance. While you can roleplay non-compliance, you will find it gets you no respect and kills your credibility here.

[Wallenburg]

It is no resolution because it does not solve the problem at all.

"It doesn't need to solve a problem, or even avoid creating new ones. Even 'World Space Administration' was a resolution--the worst one to ever land on my desk, but a resolution nonetheless."

It is not the right of an intergovernmental organization to make bills that should be made at the national level.

"Actually, yes it is. The national sovereignty argument has been flogged like a dead horse countless times, and it won't start winning now."

I[t] is not their right to force people to comply with policies that infringe on the beliefs of their people.

"Yes, it is."

There is a reason a one-world government cannot work, and that is that the world is too large, with too many different regions and too many different opinions.

"If that is the case, why do you insist on participating in the WA, which encompasses even multiversal governments, and therefore should work even less well?"

The Polk State has the intention to make a difference, and this remains in membership of the World Assembly.

"Even though you believe it is futile?"

The policy of the Polk State and it's relation with the World Assembly remains under review and continues to be subject to much debate in state congress.

"It isn't a debate. Your government is violating World Assembly law and must be stopped. The guards are here to arrest you, so I shall go. I must write to my own government to propose immediate multilateral action against your nation, probably beginning with massive trade sanctions."

[True Refuge]

It is no resolution because it does not solve the problem at all.

It is not the right of an intergovernmental organization to make bills that should be made at the national level.

I is not their right to force people to comply with policies that infringe on the beliefs of their people. There is a reason a one-world government cannot work, and that is that the world is too large, with too many different regions and too many different opinions.

The Polk State has the intention to make a difference, and this remains in membership of the World Assembly. The policy of the Polk State and it's relation with the World Assembly remains under review and continues to be subject to much debate in state congress.

OOC: You may be in IC, but you are attempting to go against people who have been on this forum for years, with thousands more posts than you, and quite a few are authors of resolutions themselves. You are wrong. They are right. If you still believe in the NatSov argument, there's a rule somewhere which dismisses it.

Jennifer Paulson: "Why, dear Ambassador, your government holds an incorrect opinion. What the good delegates of this Assembly have been saying is right. You are wrong. I advise your government calls an expect on international law to talk you through the facts with short words and simpler statements."

"Please, better understand the terms you agree with when you sit in this chamber. The ten thousand delegates who sit here agree and are fine with it."

"One nation can do nothing to make the WA better in anyway except proposals. If you wish to better the WA universe, please make your proposal or design a repeal for this proposal when it passes. Your policy literally means nothing here, and we do not give a [redacted]"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Minimum Standard of Living Act was passed 9,226 votes to 4,971.

[Kaboomlandia]

Good work, Railana.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
So, does anyone else think that the obvious loophole renders this Resolution worthy of a Repeal and Replace campaign?

[John Turner]

OOC:
So, does anyone else think that the obvious loophole renders this Resolution worthy of a Repeal and Replace campaign?

No, it just passed. Can we not begin the whole insta-repeal fiasco all over again? All it does is poison the well.

[Melvonia]

We in the Most Serene Republic of Melvonia heartily applaud much of the sentiment behind this bill.

In particular, we take stern issue with those nations who oppose it on the grounds that it would "force" taxpayers who work to support those who "refuse to support themselves". We do this for practical and ideological reasons. In the first instance, we support democracies with private enterprise (alone or, for our preference, in combination with state provision), and are aware that in such economies genuine full employment has historically only ever been achieved at periods of total war. Iron laws of economics dictate that there will almost always be more workers than jobs; at times of economic depression there will be many more. Some think that welfare systems are a "drain" on economies; our analysis suggests that even a small number of potential consumers in a state of absolute poverty is a much greater impediment to a flourishing economy. In the second instance, we are people first and workers second. We have jobs to live; we don't live to have jobs. We admit that this is, perhaps, a difficult concept for less culturally advanced nations to grasp.

It is for this reason that we must, with heavy hearts, oppose this bill. We believe it is too narrow and restrictive. In the wrong hands, it could be used as a hammer to batter the poor. Its assertion that a minimum standard of living should be tied to someone's willingness to "contribute to society" is, in itself, troubling to us. (What "contribution" do newborn babies make? Are they entitled to a minimum standard of living?) But that "contribution" is then defined exclusively as participating in (or actively seeking) paid employment, which is more than troubling - indeed, it's wholly unacceptable to our government and people. Voluntary service in the community, artistic endeavor, preparedness for participation in emergency situations, raising a young family or caring for elderly relatives, farming one's own little plot or devoting one's life to spiritual contemplation: all these, we believe, are real contributions, even though they'll never appear on anyone's payslip. If people are entitled to a minimum standard of living - and we firmly and passionately believe that they are - then why are only the profitably employed included in the provisions of this bill? If only people who can already earn enough to pay for their own needs are entitled, then what need for governments to make any provision at all?

We believe that this was introduced with the best of intentions, and we applaud the nobility of thought behind it. But the Melvonians, though generous, are cynical: we fear - and we do not believe, from some of the contributions of other esteemed delegates, that our fears are groundless - that this will have truly awful unintended consequences if passed. It looks like a grand statement of human dignity at first; on further reading, it's merely a list of staff perks. Its exclusion of those who do not receive a wage - because there are too few paid jobs, because they are unable to fulfil the requirements of the paid jobs on offer, or because they are contributing to the world in other ways - is a licence to persecute people many of whom are already struggling far far more than most.

[Flawdom]

We in the Most Serene Republic of Melvonia heartily applaud much of the sentiment behind this bill.

In particular, we take stern issue with those nations who oppose it on the grounds that it would "force" taxpayers who work to support those who "refuse to support themselves". We do this for practical and ideological reasons. In the first instance, we support democracies with private enterprise (alone or, for our preference, in combination with state provision), and are aware that in such economies genuine full employment has historically only ever been achieved at periods of total war. Iron laws of economics dictate that there will almost always be more workers than jobs; at times of economic depression there will be many more. Some think that welfare systems are a "drain" on economies; our analysis suggests that even a small number of potential consumers in a state of absolute poverty is a much greater impediment to a flourishing economy. In the second instance, we are people first and workers second. We have jobs to live; we don't live to have jobs. We admit that this is, perhaps, a difficult concept for less culturally advanced nations to grasp.

It is for this reason that we must, with heavy hearts, oppose this bill. We believe it is too narrow and restrictive. In the wrong hands, it could be used as a hammer to batter the poor. Its assertion that a minimum standard of living should be tied to someone's willingness to "contribute to society" is, in itself, troubling to us. (What "contribution" do newborn babies make? Are they entitled to a minimum standard of living?) But that "contribution" is then defined exclusively as participating in (or actively seeking) paid employment, which is more than troubling - indeed, it's wholly unacceptable to our government and people. Voluntary service in the community, artistic endeavor, preparedness for participation in emergency situations, raising a young family or caring for elderly relatives, farming one's own little plot or devoting one's life to spiritual contemplation: all these, we believe, are real contributions, even though they'll never appear on anyone's payslip. If people are entitled to a minimum standard of living - and we firmly and passionately believe that they are - then why are only the profitably employed included in the provisions of this bill? If only people who can already earn enough to pay for their own needs are entitled, then what need for governments to make any provision at all?

We believe that this was introduced with the best of intentions, and we applaud the nobility of thought behind it. But the Melvonians, though generous, are cynical: we fear - and we do not believe, from some of the contributions of other esteemed delegates, that our fears are groundless - that this will have truly awful unintended consequences if passed. It looks like a grand statement of human dignity at first; on further reading, it's merely a list of staff perks. Its exclusion of those who do not receive a wage - because there are too few paid jobs, because they are unable to fulfil the requirements of the paid jobs on offer, or because they are contributing to the world in other ways - is a licence to persecute people many of whom are already struggling far far more than most.

While you bring up many good points, this resolution was passed. Any attempt to fix it will need to be in the form of a repeal-replace.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC:
So, does anyone else think that the obvious loophole renders this Resolution worthy of a Repeal and Replace campaign?

No, it just passed. Can we not begin the whole insta-repeal fiasco all over again? All it does is poison the well.

I honestly don't see a problem with poisoning the well on this kind of legislation.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

No, it just passed. Can we not begin the whole insta-repeal fiasco all over again? All it does is poison the well.

One man's "poison" is another man's "fluoride supplement."

[John Turner]

No, it just passed. Can we not begin the whole insta-repeal fiasco all over again? All it does is poison the well.

I honestly don't see a problem with poisoning the well on this kind of legislation.

Well you are a pro a poisoning the well.