[PASSED] Repeal: Social Assistance Accord

[Knootoss]

OOC: That is bloody nonsense. The only mod who has posted to this thread in response to your idea has mocked your position. So until a "mod or admin" actually posts here and backs you up, don't go bandying it about please.

OOC: Mods and admins believe in the supremacy of game mechanics. The logic of game mechanics shows how absurdly illogical your argument is. But, hey, if you believe that the World Assembly should ignore game mechanics and thus noncompliance is possible and reasonable (not to mention the whole WA army thing), then we actually share the same idea. But if you think it matters, then you're going to have to prove how I'm wrong.

By the way, I'm 100% sure that no mod has disagreed with my post thusfar. The post you are referring to is from a week-old mod who came back from well over a year or two of inactivity, who has also yet to refute that game mechanics nullifies your argument. So, there's that.

OOC: Once you learn how to ignore game mechanics and the beliefs that the mod conspiracy tries to force on you... you can change the system man. It's like controlling the frickin' matrix. You can do things that are impossible. For example, according to you this repeal is blatantly illegal, yet somehow it is at vote.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: Once you learn how to ignore game mechanics and the beliefs that the mod conspiracy tries to force on you... you can change the system man. It's like controlling the frickin' matrix. You can do things that are impossible. For example, according to you this repeal is blatantly illegal, yet somehow it is at vote.

OOC: Oh, no, not illegal. Just ridiculous. But I am waiting for you to refute the logic. I won't hold my breath though. What's that saying? It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his success depends upon his not understanding it?

[Spectaculawesomeness]

"This is correct, as far as the amendment and the no need fo any replacement. As for being the work of this satan person, I have to take umbrage with that statement. The resolution was the work of Dr. Forshaw of Connopolis. While I may not agree with the good Doctor's work in regards to that resolution, I will not accept you trying to give another credit for his efforts."

OOC: This is the funniest thing I've read on these forums. Win.


IC:

While I can agree with the intent of the original resolution, the flaws and gaps that have been pointed out are more than enough to call for a repeal. Spectaculawesomeness votes for this repeal.

[The Iconian Empire]

None in this body should be asked to aid any social in means that our nation's leadership does not approve.

[The Iconian Empire]

None in this body should be asked to aid any social in means that our nation's leadership does not approve.

Submission of vote with no amendments

[Connopolis]

None in this body should be asked to aid any social in means that our nation's leadership does not approve.

If that's how you feel, then resign. All legislation that passes is binding, whether or not your leadership approves it.

He's also quite clearly lost his mind. Since when does repealing a resolution mean that assisting the poor is "abolished"?

I was referring to his Excellency's beliefs in regards to the religious validity of social security, not the repeal.

Yours truly,

[Reverend Lyndon Love]

Friend, it isn't about it being unpopular. I imagine it was popular when it was voted on or it wouldn't have passed. It's about it being ungodly. God was displeased with it so he decided to do something about it and the Holy Spirit spoke to Mr. Koopman and moved him to write this repeal.

Interesting postulation - I can't speak for you, however, but my God does not advocate the abolition of assisting the poor, and does not brand people that do so as satanic.

Yours in being holier than thou,

The Bible tells us that we are indeed supposed to help the poor, through charity. But friend, charity is helping others willingly out of love and compassion. When the government puts a gun to your head and takes your money away and gives it to someone else, that's not charity. That's theft.

[Schipperke]

It is our belief that any forced system of social welfare should be abolished with great haste.
Further more how a nation addresses the needs of the poor and destitute is an internal matter.

Endless welfare is detrimental to long range productivity with the end results being a class of people who become a permanent burden on society. There is no profit to be obtained by supporting an unproductive class of citizen.

With great vigor we support this measure and pray to the great Exchequer there shall not be a replacement.

[Connopolis]

Interesting postulation - I can't speak for you, however, but my God does not advocate the abolition of assisting the poor, and does not brand people that do so as satanic.

Yours in being holier than thou,

The Bible tells us that we are indeed supposed to help the poor, through charity. But friend, charity is helping others willingly out of love and compassion. When the government puts a gun to your head and takes your money away and gives it to someone else, that's not charity. That's theft.

Your Excellency, I have but one questions - charity - which is gracious and commended by the Bible - is a voluntary act of generosity, no? Well, those who are not willing to donate for charitable causes are to damned, for they've sinned - am I correct in that statement? If so, then any reasonable follower of Christianity would agree that the state is obligated to help the poor just as any normal charitable individual, and to force those without generosity to share their wealth with the poverty stricken.

Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed.

I believe those quotes from the bible provide enough evidence in regard to the piousness of helping the poor?

Yours very, very truly,

[Southern Patriots]

The Bible tells us that we are indeed supposed to help the poor, through charity. But friend, charity is helping others willingly out of love and compassion. When the government puts a gun to your head and takes your money away and gives it to someone else, that's not charity. That's theft.

Your Excellency, I have but one questions - charity - which is gracious and commended by the Bible - is a voluntary act of generosity, no? Well, those who are not willing to donate for charitable causes are to damned, for they've sinned - am I correct in that statement? If so, then any reasonable follower of Christianity would agree that the state is obligated to help the poor just as any normal charitable individual, and to force those without generosity to share their wealth with the poverty stricken.

Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed.

I believe those quotes from the bible provide enough evidence in regard to the piousness of helping the poor?

Yours very, very truly,

Right, but none of that actually tackles his point, which would appear that the government should not force a person, the person should make the choice of charity.

[Reverend Lyndon Love]

The Bible tells us that we are indeed supposed to help the poor, through charity. But friend, charity is helping others willingly out of love and compassion. When the government puts a gun to your head and takes your money away and gives it to someone else, that's not charity. That's theft.

Your Excellency, I have but one questions - charity - which is gracious and commended by the Bible - is a voluntary act of generosity, no? Well, those who are not willing to donate for charitable causes are to damned, for they've sinned - am I correct in that statement? If so, then any reasonable follower of Christianity would agree that the state is obligated to help the poor just as any normal charitable individual, and to force those without generosity to share their wealth with the poverty stricken.

Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed.

I believe those quotes from the bible provide enough evidence in regard to the piousness of helping the poor?

Yours very, very truly,

Friend, even the devil can quote scripture, but he usually quotes it incorrectly. Neither of those verses can be used to justify the state forcing people to give and you won't find a verse that gives such justification. Those who can afford to give but refuse have probably sinned, but that's for God to sort out, not the government. And the government forcefully taking money from one group and giving it to another is about as "Christian" as it would be if I were to go and break into my neighbor's house, steal his stuff, and donate it to charity.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

-2 Thessalonians 3:10

But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.

-Philemon 1:14

You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.

-Leviticus 19:15

There remain many other verses on the virtue of voluntary charity, and the need for equal justice under the law.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Susa listened intently to the minister, communing in the Word of God, and he could feel the Holy Spirit moving through him. Quietly he pondered the arguments from the Connopolian speaker, and began to consider his true, devilish nature: a stubborn and unyielding old man, deeply self-righteous and cynical to the point of actually quoting Scripture to justify his wickedness, coming from a nation with the word "con" in its name...and as the Spirit continued to work in Susa, the holy reverend's condemnations of the Connopolian's false and ungodly character affected him greatly, and he could hear the voice of God faintly whispering to him. The sudden realization washed over him like baptismal water. This was no simple misguided diplomat speaking before the WA; this was the Antichrist, masquerading before the noble Parliament of Man, trying desperately to deceive them into holding on to their folly. Susa knew what he had to do. Quietly he bowed his head for a quick moment of prayer.

"Amen," he muttered in resolution, and suddenly started charging straight for the Connopolian minister, roaring with heavenly fury:

"The power of Christ compels me! The power of Christ compels me! The power of Christ compels me--"

He collided violently with the old man, overcoming his instinctive struggles like a giant crushing a baby bird in its fist, dragging the ancient envoy closer and closer to the opened window behind the Connopolian delegation, until they both fell through it, Susa continuing to roar to the heavens to sanctify his justified rage. As they tumbled toward the waiting Vastivan Memorial waters, Susa pulled a small detonator from his jacket pocket. Luckily he'd remembered to put on his best suicide vest for the occasion. But he readied to click the button, they both crashed into the pond, and the water flooded the mechanism, assuring that any attempts by Susa to blow himself and his captive up would not succeed.

As the sopping-wet Kennyite began to realize his failure, he turned angrily on the Connopolian crumpled up beside him in the pool. "This is all your fault," he raged, and began to pummel the helpless old diplomat.

[Shadowlandistan]

Shadowlandistan has voted against this resolution.

[Iriatherina]

Iriatherina votes against. The SAA represents a basic level of survival and dignity that all sapients deserve; any nation that claims to be too poor to provide even that meager support needs to tax its parasitic capitalist robber barons more. Scarcity is a political creation, not a law of nature.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in support of this repeal. As well-intentioned as its authors may have been, the SAA simply imposes an unreasonable financial burden upon member-states governments, and introduces unwanted meddling into the social assistance programs of those nations.

[Arivali]

If SAA is repealed, then nations who wish to are welcome to start their own welfare programs. I had one before this, and I will go back to it when SAA is gone.

[Cromarty]

Interesting postulation - I can't speak for you, however, but my God does not advocate the abolition of assisting the poor, and does not brand people that do so as satanic.

Yours in being holier than thou,

The Bible tells us that we are indeed supposed to help the poor, through charity. But friend, charity is helping others willingly out of love and compassion. When the government puts a gun to your head and takes your money away and gives it to someone else, that's not charity. That's theft.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" - Mark 12:15

[Knootoss]

Iriatherina votes against. The SAA represents a basic level of survival and dignity that all sapients deserve; any nation that claims to be too poor to provide even that meager support needs to tax its parasitic capitalist robber barons more. Scarcity is a political creation, not a law of nature.

What about nations who, inconveniently, do not have "parasitic capitalist robber barons" for you to rob indefinitely?


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Connopolis]

Iriatherina votes against. The SAA represents a basic level of survival and dignity that all sapients deserve; any nation that claims to be too poor to provide even that meager support needs to tax its parasitic capitalist robber barons more. Scarcity is a political creation, not a law of nature.

What about nations who, inconveniently, do not have "parasitic capitalist robber barons" for you to rob indefinitely?


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

I must say, your incessant flow of ad hoc fixes to compensate for mistaken assumptions in your repeal is anything but subtle.

"Nations that are so poor that they could not afford this would most likely dissolve anyways."

"Nuh-uh; I'm talking about nations that are so poor that they couldn't afford this resolution, but haven't dissolved!"

"Well, those states should tax the absurdly rich - no problem, right?"

"I'm talking about nations that don't have rich people!"

... And then you try and pull something like this:

Of course, some people prefer to ignore the existence of poor people... in Nationstates...

How is that a practical statement when the resolution, as well as its repeal are based on the theme of the financially disadvantaged? I'd very much appreciate it if you explained what you meant here.

Yours in taking his seat,

[Knootoss]

Ad hoc fixes? You say that as if I'm the one being driven on the defensive here. Considering the present state of the vote, this seems a little factitious. The overwhelming majority of the World Assembly supports helping poor people. But the overwhelming majority of the World Assembly also realises that you cannot make poverty illegal in a World Assembly resolution and then pretend that the problem has been solved.

The World Assembly should do more to actually promote prosperity, which can be accomplished through free trade and advancement of industry resolutions. There are also two explicit lessons for Social Justice resolutions that you can take from this repeal, and I'm glad that the delegation from Unibot suggested I put them in the text of the repeal itself:

1) Don't overreach on the number of policies you try to regulate. The lack of detail WILL lead to situations that are clearly unfair.

2) World Assembly resolutions are legally binding and not merely aspirational, and you should make sure that whatever you propose is affordable for poor and developing countries. Not just handwave it with fancy theories.

[Alqania]

Christine was visibly annoyed when she took the floor.

"Gender discrimination in parental leave? Taxation is theft? Really, this debate is a good reminder of why the World Assembly needs to force its member states to have a social security system. You people disgust me and you most certainly disgust the Queendom."

[The Imperial Republic of New Kyoto]

There are several very rich nations in this assembly. If Our small country is unable to spend the amounts of money required by our well intended neighbors, will they freely pay what we cannot or will we be held economic hostage to loans forced upon us? Will this assembly assign accountants to tell us what we are not allowed to spend our taxpayers money on so we may meet the obligations of our neighbors expectations?

Or, if we should be fortunate to be able to comply with the World Assembly decree by our own means, will our country be forced to place financial burden upon our people to pay for another nation's shortfall? Shall our soldiers be used to enforce "social justice" upon our poorer neighbors?

All nations should strive to provide the best for their people but this mandate is a dangerous experiment in forced social engineering. It threatens the sovereignty of member states and insults the dignity of the people it would claim to aid.

Repeal of the Social Assistance Accord and replacement by a more flexible measure is the only just course of action.

[Dranae]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in support of this repeal. As well-intentioned as its authors may have been, the SAA simply imposes an unreasonable financial burden upon member-states governments, and introduces unwanted meddling into the social assistance programs of those nations.

We are in full agreement, Honored Delegate of the Eternal Kawaii. May the Cute One grace lunchboxes and school supplies for all eternity.

Iriatherina votes against. The SAA represents a basic level of survival and dignity that all sapients deserve; any nation that claims to be too poor to provide even that meager support needs to tax its parasitic capitalist robber barons more. Scarcity is a political creation, not a law of nature.

Honored Delegate, I believe you misunderstand the intent of this repeal. The issue here is not to OUTLAW social programs, nor in any way diminish a nation's ability to provide support to their people. The challenge is that the original resolution FORCED a very vague framework on member nations that may have been impractical or even invalidate existing programs. "Employment" and what it entails will vary from nation to nation, and the fact that the original resolution assumes a standard capitalistic worker-employee relation, it is a de facto enforcement of capitalism on all World Assembly states. In more socialist states where there is no "unemployment" due to existing state services, such as military or public-service jobs to those without other employment, the state would be forced to CREATE the Unemployment Insurance, even if there is no need.

Social services are a necessity, but it is not the place of the WA to dictate how a state should arrange or implement those services, so long as it does not violate any civil or personal rights.

[Djevka]

From the desk of Francis Dravyk
WA Representative for the Republic of Djevka


I hereby vote against the repeal.