[PASSED] Social Assistance Accord

[Connopolis]

We cannot support mandated welfare.

Your excellency, you seem to be embellishing the intent of the proposal; the Social assistance provided is minimal - only long enough to adequately stabilize socially disadvantaged individuals - and is not "mandated welfare" as you've dubbed it. A more apt interpretation would be "the preservation of disadvantaged sapient beings".

Sionis Prioratus tried something like this, and it didn't survive the first repeal. Opposed deeply.

I should hope Ms. Harper isn't opposing this simply on the grounds that it may eventually be repealed?


Yours truly,

[Connopolis]

(Second Draft)

[Herttora]

I see something new which bothers me. Should a very expensive mental health professional really be contacted everytime a person has a person of some relation die? Also, who are they to define what amount of time is necessary. For some people work is very therapeutic. Frankly, my argument comes down to a mixture of money and the fact that no one is a professional in mental health. They all know so little and cannot generalize even the most extreme mental issues.

Overall, I find this bereavement leave the most unnecessary thing. Individuals can work that out with their employers, or use of vacation time. Too many die a day to give significant time off for every family member.

Now for the more mathematical argument. A grandparent dies, let's assume the children are around 50 and their children are in their 20's. A common event certainly. That one person's death gives this paid leave to the spouse, their children, and their grandchildren. That is all cousins in a family that are in a work force on that side of the family. The loss then leads to the death of the spouse shortly after, not uncommon. Now that entire side of the family is out of the work force. The possibility for massive and explosive growth of the population on this form of leave is outright dangerous. An airplane crash could leave thousands on this paid leave.

I do not believe this was the major point of your resolution, or your major intent when creating this resolution. Please, consider dropping it entirely.

[Connopolis]

I see something new which bothers me. Should a very expensive mental health professional really be contacted everytime a person has a person of some relation die? Also, who are they to define what amount of time is necessary. For some people work is very therapeutic. Frankly, my argument comes down to a mixture of money and the fact that no one is a professional in mental health. They all know so little and cannot generalize even the most extreme mental issues.

Overall, I find this bereavement leave the most unnecessary thing. Individuals can work that out with their employers, or use of vacation time. Too many die a day to give significant time off for every family member.

Now for the more mathematical argument. A grandparent dies, let's assume the children are around 50 and their children are in their 20's. A common event certainly. That one person's death gives this paid leave to the spouse, their children, and their grandchildren. That is all cousins in a family that are in a work force on that side of the family. The loss then leads to the death of the spouse shortly after, not uncommon. Now that entire side of the family is out of the work force. The possibility for massive and explosive growth of the population on this form of leave is outright dangerous. An airplane crash could leave thousands on this paid leave.

I do not believe this was the major point of your resolution, or your major intent when creating this resolution. Please, consider dropping it entirely.

While I personally disagree, I see the validity of the point, and shall remove the clause. It would most likely be much more efficient if bereavement leave was decided on an individual basis, and I thank your delegation (as well as the Dizyktn [Demonym?] delegation) for their participation in the drafting process.

Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We cannot support mandated welfare.

Your excellency, you seem to be embellishing the intent of the proposal; the Social assistance provided is minimal - only long enough to adequately stabilize socially disadvantaged individuals - and is not "mandated welfare" as you've dubbed it. A more apt interpretation would be "the preservation of disadvantaged sapient beings".

Sionis Prioratus tried something like this, and it didn't survive the first repeal. Opposed deeply.

I should hope Ms. Harper isn't opposing this simply on the grounds that it may eventually be repealed?

Yours truly,

It's still clearly mandated welfare from one angle, regardless of where the benefits money is coming from. maybe I should give a second thought to my homelessness draft.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

I am told that my homeland already provides such services under a different name: charity. Of course, we haven't been a voting member of this... ahem... "august" organization in ages; back when we were a fully independent nation (and now, we can foist the poor bastards off on the Federation).

Regardless, while this is only designed to provide a bare minimum of assistance, it will still be viewed as welfare (just look at your category), and thus face stiff, stiff opposition. Indeed, were we a voting member, we would strenuously oppose such a thing. And not only because of the aforementioned charities, but because the Hack simply doesn't have the infrastructure or governmental mechanisms to even implement such a thing. Setting aside the cost of providing such assistance and services, the cost of creating the capacity to do so would be prohibitive.

(3a) No Financial Assistance shall be granted to individuals that intentionally incapacitate themselves with the intent of recieving said benefits.

As a final, typographical, comment; it is generally considered bad form to have a subset A without at least a subset B.


-Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Ambassador
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

[Arivali]

This again?

[Glen-Rhodes]

1.Changing "with the intent of temporarily sustaining individuals without a sufficient income" to "with the intent of temporarily sustaining individuals who are without a sufficient income" will make the clause much clearer.

2.Clause 3a is wholly unnecessary. Whether those who intentionally injure themselves have an entitlement to benefits is a question best answered through each member states' own political processes.

3.It's politically awkward to say, in a resolution establishing an entitlement to unemployment insurance, that benefits may be reduced or cut off after two years. There is nothing within the resolution mandating permanent benefits, so it is unnecessary to include this kind of antithetical language.

Lastly, the language used doesn't make it very clear that this resolution is about unemployment insurance. At first read, I completely missed it and thought it was instituting a broader welfare scheme. Why not use the actual term "unemployment insurance?" I disagree quite strongly with the Hackian Ambassador's analysis that by virtue of being any kind of welfare, this will "face stiff, very stiff opposition." Perhaps that's true of the every-loud minority, but there is nothing in the recent history of the World Assembly to suggest that welfare is a third rail.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

"Stock markets fell today after a universal mandate for unemployment benefits was proposed in the World Assembly. It had previously been reported that Prime Minister John Clarke is convincing a divided cabinet to join the World Assembly. The results of negotiations remain unknown, but opinions polls showed a sharp drop in support for the Commonwealth's entry into the WA.

And now we have famous guitarist Jim West with us to discuss his latest...."

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's still clearly mandated welfare from one angle, regardless of where the benefits money is coming from. maybe I should give a second thought to my homelessness draft.

The complete 180 Minoa has done on issues of social justice, human rights and security is incredibly astounding. Connopolis should not take for granted that the Minoans won't come out tomorrow with the exact opposite position.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Separatist Peoples]

*yawn* Opposed. Not only is welfare not an international issue, we don't believe that the WA should be legislating a universal welfare policy for all member states, regardless of the "scope". Too many nations have not the infrastructure to support such a system, and to implement this would hurt them considerably. Still others that operate on a "no input, no food" system would quickly find their primary method of encouragement gone. I believe several nations work under such a system; the Monikian delegation comes to mind.

In short: we will remain opposed until such time participation in such a system becomes entirely voluntary.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Still others that operate on a "no input, no food" system would quickly find their primary method of encouragement gone. I believe several nations work under such a system; the Monikian delegation comes to mind.

Several nations should stop being barbaric and start complying with universal norms of human rights. If this resolution ends that disgusting and evil practice, then the world will be better for it. It's become a maxim that if the Monikians are doing something, the World Assembly should probably make it illegal.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Separatist Peoples]

Still others that operate on a "no input, no food" system would quickly find their primary method of encouragement gone. I believe several nations work under such a system; the Monikian delegation comes to mind.

Several nations should stop being barbaric and start complying with universal norms of human rights. If this resolution ends that disgusting and evil practice, then the world will be better for it. It's become a maxim that if the Monikians are doing something, the World Assembly should probably make it illegal.

- Dr. B. Castro

Belive it or not, Dr. Castro, not everybody's concept of "best way to run our own nations" fits within the nice, tight perameters of your own. Some of those other ideas even work! Do have a thought for those with a differing opinion, instead of rudely quashing every dissenting opinion that happens to arise in a debate? You're diplomatic equivalent of covering your ears and shouting "NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG" is wearing thin on us...
The people of the Confederacy are hardly suffering for want of a safety net. Charity and wise saving has done more then a social safety net eve has.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Belive it or not, Dr. Castro, not everybody's concept of "best way to run our own nations" fits within the nice, tight perameters of your own.

Oh, please don't believe that I don't understand that some people's views of good governance are different than mine. Understand that I believe they are wrong. Like it or not, "no input, no food" is not generally considered a good form of governance. And despite what you want to believe, this stuff isn't relative. There are good forms of governance and there are bad forms of governance. So please spare me and my delegation your lessons on cultural relatively.

- Dr. B. Castro

[The Ainocran Embassy]

Opposed, a one size fits all welfare system will simply not work for all nations.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Isn't Dr Castro the person who said that making able-bodied people work for their bread and bacon is a form of slavery?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Isn't Dr Castro the person who said that making able-bodied people work for their bread and bacon is a form of slavery?

Forcing people to work in a gulag for their "bread and bacon" is a form a slavery, yes I said that. But let's discuss less of me and more of this proposal.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It's still clearly mandated welfare from one angle, regardless of where the benefits money is coming from. maybe I should give a second thought to my homelessness draft.

The complete 180 Minoa has done on issues of social justice, human rights and security is incredibly astounding. Connopolis should not take for granted that the Minoans won't come out tomorrow with the exact opposite position.

- Dr. B. Castro

The thing is that not all member states think benefits are the only option possible, Dr. Castro. What about Restart? or New Deal?

We can't enforce a "something for nothing" culture on all member states in regards to people who are clearly able to work, but just don't want to.

[Glen-Rhodes]

We can't enforce a "something for nothing" culture on all member states in regards to people who are clearly able to work, but just don't want to.

The Minoans a few years ago wouldn't have ever bought into this kind of ultra-conservative framing. Unemployment is an international issue. Massive unemployment levels in one state affects the entire international economy. No matter what your ideological bent, this is a fact. We have two choices from there: demand-side solutions or supply-side solutions. Doing nothing is not an option. Supply-side solutions cannot work because the World Assembly has enshrined the right to form labor unions and earn a living wage for all persons. Demand-side solutions, like unemployment insurance, are not only smart options, but really the only options.

Going beyond the economics arguments, unemployment insurance as a part of a broader social security scheme is considered by many of us to be part of the peoples' economic, social and cultural rights. We can and we should provide for these rights, regardless of the internal politics of member states. We didn't dither on civil rights because some member states have a tradition of racial discrimination. No, we asserted that rights are not relative and that there are no excuses for not granting them.

The Minoa I worked with years ago shared this view. I'm not quite certain what view they have, now.

- Dr. B. Castro

[The Eternal Kawaii]

WA might as well mandate compulsory welfare for all states.

That appears to be what this proposal intends to do.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We can't enforce a "something for nothing" culture on all member states in regards to people who are clearly able to work, but just don't want to.

The Minoans a few years ago wouldn't have ever bought into this kind of ultra-conservative framing. Unemployment is an international issue. Massive unemployment levels in one state affects the entire international economy. No matter what your ideological bent, this is a fact. We have two choices from there: demand-side solutions or supply-side solutions. Doing nothing is not an option. Supply-side solutions cannot work because the World Assembly has enshrined the right to form labor unions and earn a living wage for all persons. Demand-side solutions, like unemployment insurance, are not only smart options, but really the only options.

Going beyond the economics arguments, unemployment insurance as a part of a broader social security scheme is considered by many of us to be part of the peoples' economic, social and cultural rights. We can and we should provide for these rights, regardless of the internal politics of member states. We didn't dither on civil rights because some member states have a tradition of racial discrimination. No, we asserted that rights are not relative and that there are no excuses for not granting them.

The Minoa I worked with years ago shared this view. I'm not quite certain what view they have, now.

- Dr. B. Castro

Yes, we insist that unemployment be reduced and the needy be helped by it does not help that monetary benefits are the only option. I want to see this draft make some commitment to get able-bodied people back to work too, which would probably reduce the strength to "mild" because of the rise in workforce that will power the economy. At the moment, we're undecided but we insist that any social security resolution must have minimal negative impact on the global economy.

It's early days and maybe not my best days to hang around, but we need to get more opinion first.

- Ms. S. Harper.

[Herttora]

Still others that operate on a "no input, no food" system would quickly find their primary method of encouragement gone. I believe several nations work under such a system; the Monikian delegation comes to mind.

Several nations should stop being barbaric and start complying with universal norms of human rights. If this resolution ends that disgusting and evil practice, then the world will be better for it. It's become a maxim that if the Monikians are doing something, the World Assembly should probably make it illegal.

- Dr. B. Castro

You may believe such things should be guaranteed, but you cannot logically use the word human right. What are human rights were defined by a mixture of greek philosophy and the creators of the modern ideas of freedom and democracy. Inalienable rights are those which were always guaranteed until the work of man attempted to repress it. Food is, was, and never can be fully guaranteed. It is not a human right. To continue to use that phrase is spin, and little else.

To block access to food that citizens would normally be able to produce or afford is an affront to human rights, though. So, as you can see government meddling causes more human rights violations in the case of "structured economies" than any example you can give in regards to the lack of social safety nets. A person has no ability to access food, then there is no right for them to have it. To take your own energy and provide it for them is an act of good, and should be supported. The name for that is charity. Taking food out of other's mouths unwilling to stuff it down that person's is a human rights violation.

[Connopolis]

Several nations should stop being barbaric and start complying with universal norms of human rights. If this resolution ends that disgusting and evil practice, then the world will be better for it. It's become a maxim that if the Monikians are doing something, the World Assembly should probably make it illegal.

- Dr. B. Castro

You may believe such things should be guaranteed, but you cannot logically use the word human right. What are human rights were defined by a mixture of greek philosophy and the creators of the modern ideas of freedom and democracy. Inalienable rights are those which were always guaranteed until the work of man attempted to repress it. Food is, was, and never can be fully guaranteed. It is not a human right. To continue to use that phrase is spin, and little else.

To block access to food that citizens would normally be able to produce or afford is an affront to human rights, though. So, as you can see government meddling causes more human rights violations in the case of "structured economies" than any example you can give in regards to the lack of social safety nets. A person has no ability to access food, then there is no right for them to have it. To take your own energy and provide it for them is an act of good, and should be supported. The name for that is charity. Taking food out of other's mouths unwilling to stuff it down that person's is a human rights violation.

Ambassador, perhaps we should focus on human rights in regards to the laymen term; the fact that humans deserve basic necessities. It seems that your homogenizing natural selection and human rights into one literal, philosophical hodgepodge of twisted terminology. It is widely accepted that sapient life is a sapient right; it was never made a right, nor dubbed one - a right simply is. Therefore, by denying an individual assistance (or simply failing to provide them with it), you are indirectly violating their right to life. Unless, of course, you think that life is not a right - in which case, that would negate the point of murders illegality. If a sapient being doesn't reserve the right to live, why should another individual be punished for murdering them?

Yours in deep confusion over hypocrisy,

[Dizyntk]

"We are in disagreement over the wording of Clause 1. If our nation possesses sufficient charitable organizations to deal with the problems mentioned, and it does, why should we be forced to take money from said charities and administer it via the government? It seems like an unnecessary level of bureaucracy to me that would eat up money intended for the needy.

We are also still opposed to the wording of clause 2-d. We feel it to be an unwarranted and expensive suggestion that individuals need to recieve counseling just because of the death of a family member.

Also we would agree somewhat with the Ambassador from Herttora. Access to food and housing and clothing is a right. Government providing them for you is not. I believe that it is a beneficial thing to help those who are struggling but it is certainly not a right for them to expect me to do so."

[Connopolis]

"We are in disagreement over the wording of Clause 1. If our nation possesses sufficient charitable organizations to deal with the problems mentioned, and it does, why should we be forced to take money from said charities and administer it via the government? It seems like an unnecessary level of bureaucracy to me that would eat up money intended for the needy.

My dearest Feyalisa, that's a non-sequitur. It is your prerogative to decide whether or not you tax charities, and whether or not you use taxes to receive the funds for Financial Assistance. In all honesty, let's be realistic. If voluntary charity worked, would there be widespread poverty internationally; in regards to Nationstates, and RL? I believe it's a commendable assumption, but a very naive one.

We are also still opposed to the wording of clause 2-d. We feel it to be an unwarranted and expensive suggestion that individuals need to recieve counseling just because of the death of a family member.

That clause will be removed, upon your request, as well as the Hertorran ambassador.

Also we would agree somewhat with the Ambassador from Herttora. Access to food and housing and clothing is a right. Government providing them for you is not. I believe that it is a beneficial thing to help those who are struggling but it is certainly not a right for them to expect me to do so."

Err . . . no. It is not only a right of your citizens, but a duty of your government to prevent your elderly and poor from dying on the streets; unless of course you believe that hiring street cleaners to remove these decaying bodies will provide you with some sort of economic boost...

Yours,