[PASSED] Social Assistance Accord

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

The likelihood of any kind of long-term employment plan succeeding without a short-term stimulus is very low. It's incredibly difficult to get people to spend money they don't have. In other words, you can't raise demand when people can't afford anything at any price. Creating jobs is important, but that isn't the goal of this proposal. This is an unemployment insurance proposal, not an economic investment and rebuilding proposal.

Regardless of its efficacy, supply-side voodoo can't be done in the World Assembly without repealing the Living Wage Act and the Labor Relations Act. By "supply-side" I mean lowering wage floors and deregulating labor, which theoretically leads to businesses hiring more people. So what's left to combat unemployment is traditional unemployment benefits. Economic investment and rebuilding are totally separate ideas intended to address a different and broader, albeit related, problem.

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.

This is very pedantic and ultimately useless. Human rights are natural rights for all intents and purposes. You don't gain a human right, you always have it. People in the past didn't not have them; their rulers violated them. Likewise, you never lose human rights, otherwise they wouldn't be human rights.

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.

I'm not sure your syntax relays what you want to say. But if you're saying that transferring "food" from one person to another is a human rights violation, that is certainly a novel idea.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Khanatah]

The People's Proletarian Domian of Khanatah is in favour!

[Cape Harbor]

Left Wing Social Engineering

[Connopolis]

Left Wing Social Engineering

My most sincerest apologies for my confusion: lolwut?

Simply spewing generic, partisan insults is hardly a compelling argument. Political preference aside, you must take into account that without responsible Financial Assistance, you'd be impairing your own citizens. I personally find it laughable that you've dubbed a widely accepted form of state assistance "Left-Wing Social Engineering". God forbid, if anyone helps the poor...

Yours in disdain,

[Herttora]

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,

Sapient life is a sapient right? What part of existence guarantees a sapient creature life? We all die, death is a guaranteed right. Death will always come and ultimately nothing will stop it. That is a right. To attempt to guarantee life is wasted effort. I am not violating anything, as it isn't a right.

Murder, why is murder wrong? Is it because a sapient creature dies? No, murder derives from a Hebrew word. The word implies unnecessary death, not just death. So, clearly death isn't the definable quality of wrong or right in murder, but the necessity of it. So then the question becomes is it necessary that in the absence of any charity that a person not capable of providing food for themselves be given it by forcefully taking it from others.

To take forcefully what was guaranteed by nature is a human rights violation. Humans, as an aggregate, naturally have the capacity to gather, nurture, and refine food. It required no government structure, nor anything more than the basic human capacity for rationality. Therefore, is it necessary to commit a human rights violation forcefully stealing food from another person to feed a person incapable of producing for himself? No, of course not. More damage is done to society by doing so.

It isn't murder to let nature take its course, over damning an entire society to the failures seen in all welfare states. You do more harm with these programs to your citizens than poverty does alone. You bring down those capable of providing to lesser states by stealing their surplus, which is the basis for all growth, and spreading it to those who were, for whatever reason, incapable of providing. This bill is an affront to basic human rights, the ability to reap what you sow.

Not assisting a person isn't a violation to their human rights. We aren't all slaves to each other, forced to hand hold every being on the planet. We are individuals, not a hive mind. To purposefully create a situation which denies a person their natural ability to survive is a violation to human rights. To hold the poor man away from fruit growing on a tree owned by the public is a violation of human rights. However, for that man not to be able to reach and grab the fruit is nothing but nature. Inaction is never a human rights violation.

Your argument is nested entirely in pathos. You believe that society can support these people without a large loss to the general populace. Instead of arguing that, you slap a community of great minds ranging back to the first written word. A person starving is not an affront to human rights anymore than it is for a person to die of natural disease. You claim my statements legalize murder, they do not. Your statements, however, enslave the entirety of humanity to holding up the least successful of its kind. Your statements put the blame of every murder onto the rest of humanity for not stopping the murder. Your claims state society is at fault for every individual criminal act because they did not provide everything the criminal demanded. It is you who threatens the very existence of society and how we interact with each other, not me.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Not assisting a person isn't a violation to their human rights. We aren't all slaves to each other, forced to hand hold every being on the planet.

The 19th century called. It wants its outdated and universally detested ideology back.

[Connopolis]

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,

Sapient life is a sapient right? What part of existence guarantees a sapient creature life? We all die, death is a guaranteed right. Death will always come and ultimately nothing will stop it. That is a right. To attempt to guarantee life is wasted effort. I am not violating anything, as it isn't a right.

Murder, why is murder wrong? Is it because a sapient creature dies? No, murder derives from a Hebrew word. The word implies unnecessary death, not just death. So, clearly death isn't the definable quality of wrong or right in murder, but the necessity of it. So then the question becomes is it necessary that in the absence of any charity that a person not capable of providing food for themselves be given it by forcefully taking it from others.

To take forcefully what was guaranteed by nature is a human rights violation. Humans, as an aggregate, naturally have the capacity to gather, nurture, and refine food. It required no government structure, nor anything more than the basic human capacity for rationality. Therefore, is it necessary to commit a human rights violation forcefully stealing food from another person to feed a person incapable of producing for himself? No, of course not. More damage is done to society by doing so.

It isn't murder to let nature take its course, over damning an entire society to the failures seen in all welfare states. You do more harm with these programs to your citizens than poverty does alone. You bring down those capable of providing to lesser states by stealing their surplus, which is the basis for all growth, and spreading it to those who were, for whatever reason, incapable of providing. This bill is an affront to basic human rights, the ability to reap what you sow.

Not assisting a person isn't a violation to their human rights. We aren't all slaves to each other, forced to hand hold every being on the planet. We are individuals, not a hive mind. To purposefully create a situation which denies a person their natural ability to survive is a violation to human rights. To hold the poor man away from fruit growing on a tree owned by the public is a violation of human rights. However, for that man not to be able to reach and grab the fruit is nothing but nature. Inaction is never a human rights violation.

Your argument is nested entirely in pathos. You believe that society can support these people without a large loss to the general populace. Instead of arguing that, you slap a community of great minds ranging back to the first written word. A person starving is not an affront to human rights anymore than it is for a person to die of natural disease. You claim my statements legalize murder, they do not. Your statements, however, enslave the entirety of humanity to holding up the least successful of its kind. Your statements put the blame of every murder onto the rest of humanity for not stopping the murder. Your claims state society is at fault for every individual criminal act because they did not provide everything the criminal demanded. It is you who threatens the very existence of society and how we interact with each other, not me.

Ambassador, behind all the philosophical fluff, and superfluous semantics, you do realize you sound very, very silly. You are insisting that Social Assistance, a widely accepted, and successful government policy in NS (OOC:and RL) is depriving someone of their sapient rights? Semantics aside, you are comparing human rights with natural selection; where does it state that individuals are guaranteed the right to economic freedom, personal freedom, and sapient life^[1]? Rights are; they are not granted, nor is there existence debated. You can tell me what Aristotle thought all you want; Aristotle's fundamental philosophy simply does not apply to the intricate economic systems that exist within the modern era. When push comes to shove, you are the one debating a widely accepted policy, which is extremely successful when handled responsibly. You are the one claiming that the well off are being deprived of their rights because the disadvantaged need assistance. You are the one who is using feint semantics in order to debate the aforementioned policy. Overall, it is you who has the twisted view of sapient rights, in which the poor dying is a natural right.

Yours vomiting,

[Herttora]

This is very pedantic and ultimately useless. Human rights are natural rights for all intents and purposes. You don't gain a human right, you always have it. People in the past didn't not have them; their rulers violated them. Likewise, you never lose human rights, otherwise they wouldn't be human rights.

Firstly, natural rights were created by people assuming basic necessities are a right, making the term false in of itself. From the moment you are born you have no claim to any specific source of food, water or shelter. You gain only what you take, get, or are given. As of birth I can claim the right to speak, even if I do not logically understand why, and cannot even produce the words. Speech is a human right, a right which is given to us by our innate being.

People in the past still had a right to everyone of the rights now guaranteed by just governments today. A serf could claim he has the right to speak his mind, and he would have been correct. The fact that man produced a structure and acted upon each other to repress and refuse this basic right does not negate the truth that it is what he deserves because he is human. My previous statements on human rights covered that they continue to be rights even when man creates something to take them away.

I'm not sure your syntax relays what you want to say. But if you're saying that transferring "food" from one person to another is a human rights violation, that is certainly a novel idea.

- Dr. B. Castro

Firstly, we must compress all discussions to that of small scale individuals, under a common government, interacting. The discussion of competition between two separate aggregate groups is quite more complex, but not relevant to this bill.

A government shouldn't hurt its own people, something stated by both sides. The argument is over what is hurting and what is helping. It is my argument that for a government to take surplus, the key necessity of growth, from a citizen to give it to another is theft. It takes away that person's natural ability to grow and thrive, for the purpose of another being for whatever reason is incapable of sustaining even the status quo, let alone growth.

Transferring food from on person to another is not a human rights violation. Forcefully taking it from one to another under the social contract of society is a human rights violation. This is true for any third party, including the government. It is theft, even under the banner of a nation.

Your semantic based debate, claiming it as a transfer, doesn't change the result for the person at the business end of this ancient, failed, and totalitarian act. "Transfer," does not make Mao and Stalin heroes.

[Connopolis]

Your semantic based debate, claiming it as a transfer, doesn't change the result for the person at the business end of this ancient, failed, and totalitarian act. "Transfer," does not make Mao and Stalin heroes.

Does anyone else taste hypocrisy in that statement? I also taste a sharp flavor; perhaps this post was garnished with a straw-man fallacy as well? The teaspoon of irony does give it an unpleasant aftertaste, however.

[Herttora]

Ambassador, behind all the philosophical fluff, and superfluous semantics, you do realize you sound very, very silly. You are insisting that Social Assistance, a widely accepted, and successful government policy, both in NS, and RL, is depriving someone of their sapient rights? Semantics aside, you are comparing human rights with natural selection; where does it state that individuals are guaranteed the right to economic freedom, personal freedom, and sapient life^[1]? Rights are; they are not granted, nor is there existence debated. You can tell me what Aristotle thought all you want; Aristotle's fundamental philosophy simply does not apply to the intricate economic systems that exist within the modern era. When push comes to shove, you are the one debating a widely accepted policy, which is extremely successful when handled responsibly. You are the one claiming that the well off are being deprived of their rights because the disadvantaged need assistance. You are the one who is using feint semantics in order to debate the aforementioned policy. Overall, it is you who has the twisted view of sapient rights, in which the poor dying is a natural right.

Yours vomiting,

Your response to so many points was nothing but to insult them as fluff. If that is the debate you wish I shall not participate. You have quite a few points still left to defeat.

Sapient life isn't guaranteed, but it is enforced by certain governments that no one unfairly takes it from you (murder). As for economic freedom, you dare claim that is what you're supporting as you draft a bill destroying the freedom to have surplus?

As for rights being granted, I'm not sure why you and Dr. Castro continue to bring this up. In that we are in agreement. Thus, that is why food, water, and shelter aren't rights. You grant someone food, but you do not grant them the rationality to be able to farm. Thank you for proving my point.

OOC: These ideas aren't widely accepted nor widely effective. Even the left in the US has significantly reduced welfare benefits. The social safety nets in Europe have pulled their financial situation into such a hole that Obama is telling them to reduce spending...

Either you do not care to, or do not have the ability to debate on such a level of rationality. However, that is my chosen method, not the repetition of unsupported points and swiping away paragraphs of logic proofs as silly simply because it couldn't be refuted.

[Herttora]

Your semantic based debate, claiming it as a transfer, doesn't change the result for the person at the business end of this ancient, failed, and totalitarian act. "Transfer," does not make Mao and Stalin heroes.

Does anyone else taste hypocrisy in that statement? I also taste a sharp flavor; perhaps this post was garnished with a straw-man fallacy as well? The teaspoon of irony does give it an unpleasant aftertaste, however.

OOC: Semantics is a useless argument over words. The difference between death and murder isn't useless. However, claiming theft as "transferring" is nothing but spin.

EDIT:
OOC: Until I discover some form of argument that fits into the nature of these forums better, I will cease arguing the basics of welfare and only continue to offer suggestions on the bill.

[Connopolis]

Ambassador, behind all the philosophical fluff, and superfluous semantics, you do realize you sound very, very silly. You are insisting that Social Assistance, a widely accepted, and successful government policy, both in NS, and RL, is depriving someone of their sapient rights? Semantics aside, you are comparing human rights with natural selection; where does it state that individuals are guaranteed the right to economic freedom, personal freedom, and sapient life^[1]? Rights are; they are not granted, nor is there existence debated. You can tell me what Aristotle thought all you want; Aristotle's fundamental philosophy simply does not apply to the intricate economic systems that exist within the modern era. When push comes to shove, you are the one debating a widely accepted policy, which is extremely successful when handled responsibly. You are the one claiming that the well off are being deprived of their rights because the disadvantaged need assistance. You are the one who is using feint semantics in order to debate the aforementioned policy. Overall, it is you who has the twisted view of sapient rights, in which the poor dying is a natural right.

Yours vomiting,

Your response to so many points was nothing but to insult them as fluff. If that is the debate you wish I shall not participate. You have quite a few points still left to defeat.

Sapient life isn't guaranteed, but it is guaranteed that no one unfairly takes it from you (murder). As for economic freedom, you dare claim that is what you're supporting as you draft a bill destroying the freedom to have surplus?

As for rights being granted, I'm not sure why you and Dr. Castro continue to bring this up. In that we are in agreement. Thus, that is why food, water, and shelter aren't rights. You grant someone food, but you do not grant them the rationality to be able to farm. Thank you for proving my point.

OOC: These ideas aren't widely accepted nor widely effective. Even the left in the US has significantly reduced welfare benefits. The social safety nets in Europe have pulled their financial situation into such a hole that Obama is telling them to reduce spending...

Either you do not care to, or do not have the ability to debate on such a level of rationality. However, that is my chosen method, not the repetition of unsupported points and swiping away paragraphs of logic proofs as silly simply because it couldn't be refuted.

Ambassador, I'm glad you find your own logic compelling, however, it has become apparent that neither I, nor Dr. Castro are convinced. As philosophy is built upon personal opinion, one cannot use it to debate the semantics of sapient rights. If (a large emphasis on if) sapient life were not a right, then the importance of it would still supersede the apparent violation of "stealing" from the wealthy. Ambassador, I do not rule your nation, therefore, if you believe that superfluous wealth is more important then the heaps of dead paupers on your streets, then that's your prerogative. I believe your ideology was popular during the aristocracy of Europe in the early 1600's . . . The system would have worked to if there hadn't been more peasants dying then there were children being born.

[Glen-Rhodes]

A government shouldn't hurt its own people, something stated by both sides. The argument is over what is hurting and what is helping. It is my argument that for a government to take surplus, the key necessity of growth, from a citizen to give it to another is theft.

First, I'm not going to entertain your pedantic argument over what kind of rights are human rights, because everybody here should already know what is meant by "human rights." If they don't, then they really shouldn't be here.

Second, your argument makes even taxation illegitimate. If you want to tell all member states that they should adopt ultra-libertarian forms of government, then that's fine. Fruitless, but how you waste your time is your choice. But this isn't the place to do it. I've never understood why certain delegations insist on coming into a proposal debate, totally opposing even the very idea of the proposal, and suggesting nothing but scrapping the project altogether. Not only that, but spending hours upon hours telling the author and supporters to scrap it.

The author clearly doesn't subscribe to your views. Come in, say that you'll never support the proposal, and kindly get out. Don't waste our time with diatribes. We're here to improve the proposal, not end it.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Connopolis]

(Third Draft)

[Dizyntk]

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.

"Perhaps it does not work in your nation, Dr. Forshaw, but it works perfectly well in mine. We are a very moral people and charity for the poor is a moral perogative in the Imperium."

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

"Thank you very much, Dr. Forshaw."

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

"The poor and elderly will not be dying in the streets, as you are overly fond of saying, simply because the government does not provide everything for them. Why, exactly, would the elderly be dying in the streets anyway? Does your nation encourage the elderly to be destitute? Mine certainly does not.
Having another person supply your means of living is not a right unless you are a child that is too young to provide these things on your own. As I said, however, I do believe that providing assisstance to poorer individuals is beneficial to a society. I just disagree that it is a right."

[Connopolis]

"Perhaps it does not work in your nation, Dr. Forshaw, but it works perfectly well in mine. We are a very moral people and charity for the poor is a moral perogative in the Imperium."

My dear Princess, this may work well in your nation, but surely you cannot assume it works well universally? If this does work well, then your Financial Assistance fund will need very little revenue to sustain itself.

"Thank you very much, Dr. Forshaw."

It was my pleasure, your excellency.

"The poor and elderly will not be dying in the streets, as you are overly fond of saying, simply because the government does not provide everything for them. Why, exactly, would the elderly be dying in the streets anyway? Does your nation encourage the elderly to be destitute? Mine certainly does not.
Having another person supply your means of living is not a right unless you are a child that is too young to provide these things on your own. As I said, however, I do believe that providing assisstance to poorer individuals is beneficial to a society. I just disagree that it is a right."

Homeless people do have a tendency of dying on the streets, ambassador. Regardlessly, while assisting the aforementioned individuals might not be considered a "right" by some individuals, it is necessary, both economically, and morally.

Yours,

[Dizyntk]

Homeless people do have a tendency of dying on the streets, ambassador. Regardlessly, while assisting the aforementioned individuals might not be considered a "right" by some individuals, it is necessary, both economically, and morally.

"Homeless people? Yes. Not everyone that is poor is homeless however. I agree that there needs to be more help for those that are truly destitute. I agree also that it is a moral necessity to help those less fortunate than oneself. Semantics about rights and morals aside, however, I have no objections to this proposal's intent. As such I will support it if it comes to vote."

[Charlotte Ryberg]

(6) Member states shall have the ability to adjust the benefits of individuals found guilty of fraud (specifically in order to attain added benefits), notwithstanding this resolution. Member states are also at liberty to reduce Financial Sustenance benefits, should the beneficiary remain unemployed for more than two years (104 weeks).

Possible better wording:

Member countries may withhold benefits against individuals convicted of serious fraud or benefit fraud;

Member countries may reduce benefits for individuals who are capable of work, but remain unemployed after a reasonable period of time – provided that commitment is made to provide access and/or incentives to further education and skills training.

The reason Minoa violated GA#156 is because of the lack of flexibility in unemployment benefits. We insist that the reasonable period in our case is nine months before the unemployed should commit to find work, but it does not imply automatic reduction because all cases are assessed individually. 9 months is the minimum, though.

Still undecided as of yet... Awaiting further opinion.

[Connopolis]

(6) Member states shall have the ability to adjust the benefits of individuals found guilty of fraud (specifically in order to attain added benefits), notwithstanding this resolution. Member states are also at liberty to reduce Financial Sustenance benefits, should the beneficiary remain unemployed for more than two years (104 weeks).

Possible better wording:

Member countries may withhold benefits against individuals convicted of serious fraud or benefit fraud;

Member countries may reduce benefits for individuals who are capable of work, but remain unemployed after a reasonable period of time – provided that commitment is made to provide access and/or incentives to further education and skills training.

The reason Minoa violated GA#156 is because of the lack of flexibility in unemployment benefits. We insist that the reasonable period in our case is nine months before the unemployed should commit to find work, but it does not imply automatic reduction because all cases are assessed individually. 9 months is the minimum, though.

Still undecided as of yet... Awaiting further opinion.

I have revised the proposal, as per your request. I thank you for your feedback, Ms. Harper.

Homeless people do have a tendency of dying on the streets, ambassador. Regardlessly, while assisting the aforementioned individuals might not be considered a "right" by some individuals, it is necessary, both economically, and morally.

"Homeless people? Yes. Not everyone that is poor is homeless however. I agree that there needs to be more help for those that are truly destitute. I agree also that it is a moral necessity to help those less fortunate than oneself. Semantics about rights and morals aside, however, I have no objections to this proposal's intent. As such I will support it if it comes to vote."

I am ecstatic to hear of Your Excellency's satisfaction.

Yours in great content,

[Scandavian States]

I think most civilized countries would acknowledge that a basic social safety net is not only the proper thing to do, it is also intelligent and the only guaranteed way for all citizens to be able to enjoy basic human rights. In the end, money is the second guarantor of basic liberties after a strong national defense apparatus. The being said, I also believe that it should be up to individual nations to decide what form of social safety net would best fit within their legal system and culture. To that end the Empire must be opposed to this resolution.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think it would help if this project had a straw poll (OOC: thread poll) to see what the general opinion of social security is.

- Ms. S. Harper

[Lowell Leber]

Not assisting a person isn't a violation to their human rights. We aren't all slaves to each other, forced to hand hold every being on the planet.

The 19th century called. It wants its outdated and universally detested ideology back.

Obviously not "universally detested" as you would think?

[Connopolis]

The 19th century called. It wants its outdated and universally detested ideology back.

Obviously not "universally detested" as you would think?

OOC: Most, if not all first world countries have functioning welfare systems.^[1]

[Glen-Rhodes]

The 19th century called. It wants its outdated and universally detested ideology back.

Obviously not "universally detested" as you would think?

I'm not sure you understood the reference?

[Desperia Heim]

"Representatives

... this has been a long discussion. And while I am not here to discuss the need for Social Welfare, I must press the most urgent matter regarding this proposition... it attempts to enforce the production of legislation within the grounds of what is INNER LAW of a nation. Something that is clearly not matter for the WA. The WA is here to provide minimal grounds for global improvement, not to push nations to follow any sort of ideological or political decition.

While I can certainly agree that each country -should- have some sort of welfare, that is most certainly a matter to be decided within the nation's posibilities and not something any other nation, friend or not, should try to enforce. The WA should only take part on situations of extreme danger such as when governments fail to provide to a large portion of its population the minimum grounds of living, something this proposition does not cover, instead attempts to generate a social agenda that may not exist on some nations...

I sadly must inform that Desperia Heim OPPOSES this proposition given the mentioned grounds."