[PASSED] Minimum Standard of Living Act

[Shaktirajya]

The wording in this resolution is, for the most part, simple, plain, and straightforward. We find this resolution in accord with the socialist values that our country upholds. This being the case, We, the Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya hereby vote FOR this resolution.

X Vaktrihi Raajaraajeshwaryaaha Hypatyaaha Sophyaaha Matrusattasya Shaktiraajyasya

[Empire of the United Kingdom]

The Minimum Standard of Living Act is a progressive one - but also stirring up a debate.
We believe that the Minimum Wage Act would be a more preferable one - as people should work for their comfortable living.
However, we realise that giving a decent standard of living should be every nations priority, not a choice. So we shall dismiss our capitalist views and accept.
If everyone has a minimum, everyone can progress.

Honestatis et Integritatis

[Celle Franca]

After consulting President Hardin and all the ministers, the current Cellesian ambassador to the World Assembly has voted FOR this resolution.

Indeed, the Cellesian people believe this resolution is not , in any way, a limitation to economic freedom (like some other treacherous capitalist nations dare to assert).
After the repeal of the Living Wage Act, we have again the possibility to create a more equal and just society, where the workers are no more the slaves of the bosses.

Solidarity forever!

-The USSCF Ambassador, Jonathan Umbacano

[Nocturnalis]

Socialistic nonsense. People want to live properly, then they can contribute to society. Equality is for the weak, and this Realm has no room for leeches.

AGAINST.

[United Arstotzka]

After careful evaluation of this World Assembly resolution, United Arstotzkan Government has come to an agreement that this act is in the interest of the state and the population. Thus Arstotzkan ministers has come to an agreement to vote FOR.

[Pacific Aggressiveness]

"We the people of Pacific Aggressiveness, while recognizing the need for states to provide the basic needs for their citizenry; have voted against this Act primarily due to the wording of clause 4c which creates a backdoor for governments to discriminate against sectors of the populace on the bill application since if there's going to be any sort of exemption from application it should be defined in the bill rather than be blank for any government to define in which cases it can ignore the Acts provisions.

Furthermore, 4c presents itself as a clause that violates the right of our citizenry to choose their work freely for it requires the government to judge what constitutes as 'a good faith attempt to support themselves without government assistance' wording which we worry allows for governments to declare professions as journalism or the arts as non-self-supportive thus leaving them without the rights to the benefits of the Act.

Our last concern comes from the 'government-mandated job training', which we find to be a disposition that allows for state sanctioned slavery due to the lack of restraints in its application, if a government decided that a 3 years training program is necessary for, let's say to keep with our last concern, a journalist and that the training program would only be given in the most inhospitable region in the nation the subject would have no choice but to comply or be prohibited from benefiting from the Act.

The people of Pacific Aggressiveness also refuse any form of legislation coming from outside sources, such as the WA, as legitimate and thus have no choice but to vote against."

[Povinksi]

Povinksi, being a staunch opponent to the repeal of GAR#21, will most certainly vote for this appeal. This resolution most certainly goes in line with our values.
Even though it was written by a capitalist nation...

[Felix Dote]

The Minister of Foreign Affairs Charlotte Whittemore had sat by, listening to all arguments for and against this resolution. When the floor was clear, she raised her placard to speak.

"This Delegation applauds the effort of the Delegation of Railana to press forward with such a proposal, which has a humanitarian intention, and intends to help the common good. However, this Delegation is concerned with the vague wording of Clause 1, which does not provide a concrete definition of whenever an individual can reasonably be construed to be "healthy, safe and productive", which can allow nation states to manipulate this clause to their advantage. Clause 4 and 5 can similarly be manipulated, with Clause 5 serving as a clear op-out to any nations which do not wish to comply, by simply stating that they are in a "crisis". Without a clear definition of the term, it can be difficult to separate clear exceptions that should be applied in this case.

This delegation believes Clause 4 has the most issues. It allows nation states to clearly discriminate against any previous offenders, by simply stating that they "refuse(d) to make a good faith attempt" at rehabilitating themselves into society. Again, without a clear definition of this term, it can be liable to be abused.

While this delegation certainly supports the spirit of this resolution, and wishes to see it pass, this Delegation cannot in good consciousness allow it to pass as-is at this moment. Therefore, this Delegation will be abstaining from voting, until such irregularities highlighted can be corrected. If the Delegation of Railana amends the following irregularities and provides clear definitions of the terms, then this Delegation will certainly vote in favor. For now, this Delegation is abstaining."

After finishing, Ms. Whittemore sat down again, scribbling rapidly a few notes on her pad, and whispered to her fellow delegate to her right.

((Sorry for being the harsh case. I completely approve of this resolution. The problem with these types of resolutions is that they are often very open-ended, such as this. By not explicitly defining the terms, they attempt to cover a huge amount of ground, and end up not making much sense and being a mess to try to legally interpret. There are a lot of loopholes which can be exploited. I agree with the spirit of this resolution, but I believe it would be best to break this resolution up into smaller, more well-defined resolutions, and pass them one at a time. That way, you can focus a lot more on a specific sub-issue, rather than try to tackle world poverty in one big, vague resolution.))

[The Manticoran Empire]

What does the World Assembly define as a minimum standard of living? Will I be required to provide all of my 70 million plus citizens with luxury housing or just aa shack with electricity, heat, and running water? Clarify in this bill or I will have to vote against it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What does the World Assembly define as a minimum standard of living? Will I be required to provide all of my 70 million plus citizens with luxury housing or just aa shack with electricity, heat, and running water? Clarify in this bill or I will have to vote against it.

Parsons: Mate, you don't need to do anything whatsoever.

Permits each member state to guarantee only a partial minimum standard of living ... when that member state ... cannot guarantee a minimum standard of living without causing substantial and lasting harm to their economy

That right there, the total inefficacy of this resolution, is why I am proud to oppose.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

We find this resolution vague. Ironically, we find this a good thing.

We are especially pleased that procedures to remedy the problem is not limited to income raising methods alone. Often the standard of living is a factor of regulation and taxation, lowering the "cost" of goods allows the standard of living to lower to the proper level. Raising the level of income might actually result in raising the costs of regulation and taxation, especially in systems that tie their revenues to the costs of income and or expenses.

We are disappointed in that it seems to concentrate on the individual and not on the basic family units, but because of the vagueness of the wording, any "reasonable nation" can easily compensate for the wording. (You have enough money to sustain yourself; your wife and two children need to apply for welfare.)

Therefore, after considerable thought, we have voted in favor of this resolution.

[Kohr]

The level of domestic authority this proposal will dictate over all of us radical states is quite frankly terrifying. We need to stop this proposal, lest the World Assembly continue to take away rights from governments to impose their own laws. Kohr does not support this blatant attack on our autonomy.

[Phydios]

The level of domestic authority this proposal will dictate over all of us radical states is quite frankly terrifying. We need to stop this proposal, lest the World Assembly continue to take away rights from governments to impose their own laws. Kohr does not support this blatant attack on our autonomy.

Honorable delegate, you lost your right to autonomy when you joined the World Assembly. If you want the right to impose any law you choose, please resign. The GA's entire purpose is to enforce regulations on member states.

[True Refuge]

The level of domestic authority this proposal will dictate over all of us radical states is quite frankly terrifying. We need to stop this proposal, lest the World Assembly continue to take away rights from governments to impose their own laws. Kohr does not support this blatant attack on our autonomy.

Honorable delegate, you lost your right to autonomy when you joined the World Assembly. If you want the right to impose any law you choose, please resign. The GA's entire purpose is to enforce regulations on member states.

Precisely, dear delegates.

Otherwise, this proposal will nicely coincide with our welfare and socialist policies. So, our delegacy votes FOR.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Precisely, dear delegates.

Otherwise, this proposal will nicely coincide with our welfare and socialist policies. So, our delegacy votes FOR.

Parsons: More importantly, what will it do to the World Assembly? Passing this proposal will simply place into stone a weak and ineffectual resolution. Rejecting this proposal and writing a stronger and more powerful resolution is the correct course of action. In the interests of future legislation, voting this down is the best action.

[Vichekhas]

The Viched government will once again point out the risk to Viched culture which this act poses. In order to comply with the parts of the act which Vichekhas affirms (i.e: most of it) it would need to accept the parts which are damaging to Viched cultural traditions and standards, thereby risking large-scale unrest either way. The passing of this act will form a dead-end for Vichekhas - if it is not edited or declined, then either large-scale riots may take place, or the Government will need to vote on whether to stay in the WA, risking our national security and aims in the process. We implore the WA to make this act more culturally accepting and aware. The intentions are decent, but they marginalise a portion of the international community.

[Normlpeople]

Clover spoke up "I suppose I should give an official position. We do not believe that anyone is entitled to anything if they are not willing to work for it, be it in active employment, or working on themselves to better their chances of such.

We do not feel handing over entitlements and encouraging people to become a drain on society is beneficial to either that individual, or society in general. This resolution allows us to enforce the requirements of working toward supporting oneself rather than making excuses not to.

The other wording is acceptable to us as well, vague enough to be effective yet not micromanagement. The fears of abuse of the emergency clause are not only unwarranted but beneficial, as it allows those nations in dire economic issue to address them without having to leave the WA to do so.

Our official position is to SUPPORT this legislation."

[Felix Dote]

OOC, as I am on my phone:

I like this resolution. It has the potential to do a whole lot of good. The problem, as I said, is that due to the vague wording, it is practically impossible to enforce. How can a nation ensure they are following clause 1 of the agreement, when there is no clear definition of the terms used there? We have to think in terms of legality: how can one, realistically, ensure such regulations are enforced? Saddly for this resolution, you can't. It's too vague and open ended to actually realistically enforce. As far as enforcing it goes, you simply have to "trust" the nations are following thought with the spirit of the resolution.

Anyone else agree?

[Allahu Akbar Republic]

Hello fellow delegates.
Why would we permit our citizens to leech of our great nations without doing anything to benefit them? I think this proposal is a good idea minus the fact there is not a job incentive part added to the proposal. If such incentives were to be added, I think it should be passed. Until then, mine and I assume many other's votes shall be against.

[Wallenburg]

Hello fellow delegates.
Why would we permit our citizens to leech of our great nations without doing anything to benefit them? I think this proposal is a good idea minus the fact there is not a job incentive part added to the proposal. If such incentives were to be added, I think it should be passed. Until then, mine and I assume many other's votes shall be against.

The act exempts those who do not seek employment from protections.

[Phydios]

Hello fellow delegates.
Why would we permit our citizens to leech of our great nations without doing anything to benefit them? I think this proposal is a good idea minus the fact there is not a job incentive part added to the proposal. If such incentives were to be added, I think it should be passed. Until then, mine and I assume many other's votes shall be against.

Clause 4c is what you're looking for.

Exempts each member state from guaranteeing a minimum standard of living to individuals who ... refuse to make a good faith attempt to support themselves without government assistance, or to engage in government-mandated job training, temporary employment or community service, without a legitimate reason, such as a disability that would prevent them from doing so;

[Noralia]

Fellow delegates, though Noralia believes that the intentions of this resolution are good for the well-being of citizens in all WA member states, we are concerned about the vague wording regarding how the "minimum standard of living" is defined.

What is this "minimum"? Does having a single meal a day count as "minimum levels of access to food"? Does having a single-room bungalow counts as the "minimum" access to shelter? Clause #2, stating that it allows member states to set their own standards of living, has no provisions for enforcement on whether the set standards will indeed guarantee a minimum AND a decent standard of living. This leaves room for possible abuse which may result to even more hardship for the impoverished.

Because of this, Noralia affirms its stance AGAINST this resolution.

[Flawdom]

OOC, as I am on my phone:

I like this resolution. It has the potential to do a whole lot of good. The problem, as I said, is that due to the vague wording, it is practically impossible to enforce. How can a nation ensure they are following clause 1 of the agreement, when there is no clear definition of the terms used there? We have to think in terms of legality: how can one, realistically, ensure such regulations are enforced? Saddly for this resolution, you can't. It's too vague and open ended to actually realistically enforce. As far as enforcing it goes, you simply have to "trust" the nations are following thought with the spirit of the resolution.

Anyone else agree?

OOC: WA member nations have to comply with laws in good faith so there's that, but you're correct that because of the vague wording a nation can comply in good faith while not going one iota above what is needed and that 'need' is so loosely defined that it is impractical to enforce.

[The Manticoran Empire]

The proposed Minimum Standard of Living Act does not clarify what minimum standard of living each Nation will be required to meet. This causes an enormous problem as it allows for far too much interpretation. Some Nations, namely those with brutal, autocratic, and oppressive regimes, would see a minimum standard of living as just enough to keep their citizens alive but not enough that they are capable of launching an uprising. This is an issue which, my government believes, must be met before changing our stance from "Against" to "For". It should be noted that The Manticoran Empire is all for a Minimum Standard of Living Act but not one that would give an authoritarian regime the ability to universally neglect his people without punishment. The General Assembly MUST clarify what a "Minimum Standard of Living" is in order for this law to fulfill it's duty. Without such clarity, this law will be hollow and utterly useless, leaving millions and perhaps even billions of the worlds citizens impoverished, starved, and without access to clean running water or reliable electricity. My government, and I personally, implore my fellow Nations to see this flaw and to hold off on passing it until the Minimum Standard of Living Act specifies what a Minimum Standard of Living is. Thank you.

[Normlpeople]

The proposed Minimum Standard of Living Act does not clarify what minimum standard of living each Nation will be required to meet. This causes an enormous problem as it allows for far too much interpretation. Some Nations, namely those with brutal, autocratic, and oppressive regimes, would see a minimum standard of living as just enough to keep their citizens alive but not enough that they are capable of launching an uprising. This is an issue which, my government believes, must be met before changing our stance from "Against" to "For". It should be noted that The Manticoran Empire is all for a Minimum Standard of Living Act but not one that would give an authoritarian regime the ability to universally neglect his people without punishment. The General Assembly MUST clarify what a "Minimum Standard of Living" is in order for this law to fulfill it's duty. Without such clarity, this law will be hollow and utterly useless, leaving millions and perhaps even billions of the worlds citizens impoverished, starved, and without access to clean running water or reliable electricity. My government, and I personally, implore my fellow Nations to see this flaw and to hold off on passing it until the Minimum Standard of Living Act specifies what a Minimum Standard of Living is. Thank you.

"Ambassador, did you bother reading the resolution at all? It is also not the place of the WA to encourage the overthrow of regimes that one member may not approve of"