NATION

PASSWORD

[Passed] Repeal "Safety in Difficult Times"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
FreeWillToAll
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

[Passed] Repeal "Safety in Difficult Times"

Postby FreeWillToAll » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:27 pm

Since it seem inevitable thatSafety in Difficult Times will did pass, I have written up a repeal. Keep in mind this is my first resolution and might not be up to par so I would appreciate any suggestions.

Proposal Submitted

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #156: Safety in Difficult Times (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

OBSERVING the need to provide safety nets and protection in Difficult Times.

APPLAUDING all countries that are and have been providing welfare to persons located in their jurisdiction.

REALIZING not all countries have the resources to do so; especially in hard economic times.

FRIGHTENED, that this may force nations to raise taxes, which may cripple already struggling economies.

CONCERNED that this resolution has many loopholes that may be abused, and such abuse, and the oversight needed to catch offenders, will cost nations even more money that they may not have.

NOTING, ''Safety in Difficult Times'' specifies that unemployment benefits be given to those involuntarily unemployed. It does allow for those involuntarily unemployed due to being fired for incompetence, among many other reasons one may be fired. This leaves a loophole open for those who are unwilling to work to cause themselves to be fired and receive benefits.

ADDITIONALLY NOTING, bereavement clause is unneeded and will be abused by those not interested in working. For example; A middle aged citizen whose father or mother died could take a whole year's vacation paid by the government. In reality, while the loss of a loved one is a terrible thing, it does not require a person to be out of work for any significant length of time.

FURTHER NOTING, This resolution requires the dispensation of funds when one gives birth to a child or adopts one (See Parental Leave Section 4). For one, there is no specified length of time for the benefits to last. Secondly, there is nothing stating that the new parents must keep the child. Thirdly, there is nothing regarding cases of neglect.

WORRIES about the provisions of section 5b); ''Pensions for survivors who are minors shall last until they have attained a basic education and are able to work''. This is a very lengthy time for anyone to receive benefits. This would basically allow the child's guardian to live off the government dime the entire time since the provision states that benefits must be enough to provide for housing, food, utilities, and schooling costs. There is no reason that a child's guardian could not obtain work in a reasonable amount of time. Single parents of divorce do it every day.

REALIZES this is an attempt at international welfare, which each member nation is capable of seeing to themselves if they are able and willing. Many have them already, which makes this resolution redundant. Not only this, but such a Socialist piece of legislation is an ideology; something which member states are prohibited to force on others, as the rights and duties of World Assembly states declares.

ADDITIONALLY NOTING, due to the cultural and societal differences in all of the countries in the World Assembly, welfare is an issue that must be solved domestically and crafted to the specific needs and wants of the target population and through.

RESOLVES, that the ''Safety in Difficult Times'' resolution is poorly worded, ambiguous, and addresses an issue that should be resolved domestically.

HEREBY REPEALS ''Safety in Difficult Times
Last edited by Ardchoille on Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:01 am, edited 19 times in total.

User avatar
Monikian WA Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 927
Founded: Nov 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Monikian WA Mission » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:32 pm

"Monkiah will support this repeal. Mainly because it has the word 'repeal' in the name, and we hate the welfare-stateist drivel in the proposal that is likely to pass."
All posts should be assumed to be IC unless I am using an OOC indicator.

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

(An asterisk [*] {or exclamation point [!] at the beginning of a word} in Monikian Words indicates a clicking sound which is not easily translatable in the Latin alphabet)

some cool stuff

User avatar
Motuka
Diplomat
 
Posts: 797
Founded: Jun 03, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Motuka » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:57 pm

While we are equally opposed to Safety in Difficult Times, this repeal is not strong enough to stand. A superior argument would invoke the right of national self-determination, the lack of provision for welfare fraud, the costs this would place upon a national government and negative consequences thereof, et cetera.

- S.K.
World Assembly Personnel: Sandor Kaji ~ Julian Kbitaru

Political compass: Approximately -8 Social/+1 Economic (OOC); -6 Social/+9 Economic (IC) ~ Making Maps [suggestions welcome]

User avatar
The Left-Libertarian Hippies
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1671
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Left-Libertarian Hippies » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:02 pm

NO! This is one of the best things the WA has done...no, no, and NOOOOOOOOOO!
Proud to be a Liberal Democratic-Socialist!

Political Compass: -7.13, -7.38 (Left-Libertarian quadrant)
How Progressive Are You?: 373/400 (extremely progressive)

Likes: Economic democracy, left-liberalism, green politics, socialism, left-libertarianism
Dislikes Conservatism, the Republican Party, statism, fascism, state-socialism

User avatar
FreeWillToAll
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby FreeWillToAll » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:17 pm

Motuka wrote:While we are equally opposed to Safety in Difficult Times, this repeal is not strong enough to stand. A superior argument would invoke the right of national self-determination, the lack of provision for welfare fraud, the costs this would place upon a national government and negative consequences thereof, et cetera.

- S.K.

Issue addressed in new draft.


The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:NO! This is one of the best things the WA has done...no, no, and NOOOOOOOOOO!


Although it does solve the economic issues of some, it does it incorrectly and does not address issues of abuse. Since there is no way to amend a resolution it must be repealed and amended and then resubmitted.
Last edited by FreeWillToAll on Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:31 pm

No, thank you.
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

User avatar
Unibot II
Senator
 
Posts: 3852
Founded: Jan 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot II » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:35 pm

No. *stamps 'no' on a page*
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
Member of Gholgoth | The Capitalis de Societate of The United Defenders League (UDL) | Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL?
World Assembly Card Gallery // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78;
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:39 pm

FURTHER NOTING, This resolution requires the dispensation of funds when one gives birth to a child or adopts one (See Parental Leave Section 4). This will lead to child neglect due to the fact that once a child has been adopted this resolution does not force the guardian to take care of the child, nor does it provide for measures that would alleviate this concern.


I shall point out that The Child Protection Act has already dealt with the potential of lack of care.

ADDITIONALLY, Section III, Article 10 of “Rights and Duties of WA States” (Resolution #2), declares that “the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife”.

ADDITIONALLY NOTING, Although membership in the World Assembly is a choice, its purpose is to insure peace and tranquility among the many countries in the world. It's purpose is not to dissolve the sovereignty of the member states. Due to the cultural and societal differences in all of the countries in the World Assembly, this issue must be solved domestically and crafted to the specific needs and wants of the target population and through.


How is this relevant??

Word count?
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Arivali
Envoy
 
Posts: 229
Founded: Jun 15, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Arivali » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:51 pm

Again, if you are concerned with social welfare, deal with it in your own country! Last I knew, the WA was an alliance of people coming together for the common good; not an international government. The stupid proposal is forced Socialism, and I am not a Socialist. I will either help repeal this fluffy feel good drivel, or I will be forced to abuse the hell out of the loopholes (which there are quite a few).

It doesn't say how long many of the benefits should last. The unemployment one is spelled out, but what about those who get fired for incompetence? I don't think stupidity and incompetence deserve to be rewarded.

But what about the rest? When a child is born/adopted, do we have to pay benefits until the kid graduates college? Or bereavement; exactly how long should bereavement last? It gives a length of time for minors, but that could be an awfully long time. If the child is a baby, the person caring for that child will be suckling from the government for a very long time. It doesn't say anything about adult dependents though. I guess that's up to the Lords and I to decide.

User avatar
FreeWillToAll
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby FreeWillToAll » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:52 pm

Moronist Decisions wrote:
FURTHER NOTING, This resolution requires the dispensation of funds when one gives birth to a child or adopts one (See Parental Leave Section 4). This will lead to child neglect due to the fact that once a child has been adopted this resolution does not force the guardian to take care of the child, nor does it provide for measures that would alleviate this concern.


I shall point out that The Child Protection Act has already dealt with the potential of lack of care.

ADDITIONALLY, Section III, Article 10 of “Rights and Duties of WA States” (Resolution #2), declares that “the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife”.

ADDITIONALLY NOTING, Although membership in the World Assembly is a choice, its purpose is to insure peace and tranquility among the many countries in the world. It's purpose is not to dissolve the sovereignty of the member states. Due to the cultural and societal differences in all of the countries in the World Assembly, this issue must be solved domestically and crafted to the specific needs and wants of the target population and through.


How is this relevant??

Word count?

Right now I am in the drafting stage... so some things are too wordy... and if you notice there is kinda two points in the resolution, i will most likely make it half its size at the end.

User avatar
Aetrina
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 184
Founded: Jun 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Aetrina » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:03 pm

My government would support this if the need arises. We would also like to congratulate the author on his first draft of a resolution.
Eist wrote:Nice! Wait. Am I the knight or the unicorn?
I think the joke would be less effective if you were the unicorn.
Andrew Delling Ambassador of Aetrina
Proud member of The Kingdom Of Aetrina

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:03 pm

Arivali wrote:Last I knew, the WA was an alliance of people coming together for the common good


Exactly.

Yours,
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:25 pm

We will support a repeal of the socialist dreck that is currently being shoved down our throats by the lemming vote.

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

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Arivali
Envoy
 
Posts: 229
Founded: Jun 15, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Arivali » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:38 pm

Sionis Prioratus wrote:
Arivali wrote:Last I knew, the WA was an alliance of people coming together for the common good


Exactly.

Yours,


You cut my quote short... The other half was that the WA is not an international government, but it seems a lot of people are trying to turn it into one. Honestly, what is it with all the proposals of things that can be taken care of at a national level much more efficiently?

User avatar
Burton Industries
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 41
Founded: Nov 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Burton Industries » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:40 pm

Monikian WA Mission wrote:"Monkiah Burton Industries will support this repeal. Mainly because it has the word 'repeal' in the name, and we hate the welfare-stateist drivel in the proposal that is likely to pass."
My thoughts exactly.

User avatar
Corumm
Envoy
 
Posts: 247
Founded: May 11, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Corumm » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:42 pm

It might need polishing but it is an adequate response to the socialist encroachment upon the rights of national governments.

User avatar
Romivul WA Mission
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jul 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Romivul WA Mission » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:43 pm

The Republic of Romivul shall support this repeal. The ''Safety in Difficult Times'' bill imply that the WA has the right to mandate nations welfare programs which is completely beyond their jurisdiction. We shall fight for this bill to be repealed.
Vote against the ''Safety in Difficult Times'' resolution.' The WA has no right to force WA members into giving welfare as stated by Section 1 Articles One and Two of the ''Rights and Duties of WA members'' resolution.

User avatar
Dilsnufi
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: May 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dilsnufi » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:45 pm

Yes

User avatar
Romivul WA Mission
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jul 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Romivul WA Mission » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:45 pm

We feel the ''Safety In Difficult Times'' resolution also violates Article 3 Section 1 of the ''Rights and Duties of WA States'' resolution passed some time ago.

''Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.''
Last edited by Romivul WA Mission on Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vote against the ''Safety in Difficult Times'' resolution.' The WA has no right to force WA members into giving welfare as stated by Section 1 Articles One and Two of the ''Rights and Duties of WA members'' resolution.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15245
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:46 pm

With some refining, I believe we could support this. Safety in Difficult Times was well written, but we would much rather see it repealed. This is legislation that, we believe, would be best suited at a national level.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Gernonai
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1080
Founded: Jun 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Gernonai » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:46 pm

Arivali wrote:Again, if you are concerned with social welfare, deal with it in your own country! Last I knew, the WA was an alliance of people coming together for the common good; not an international government. The stupid proposal is forced Socialism, and I am not a Socialist. I will either help repeal this fluffy feel good drivel, or I will be forced to abuse the hell out of the loopholes (which there are quite a few).

It doesn't say how long many of the benefits should last. The unemployment one is spelled out, but what about those who get fired for incompetence? I don't think stupidity and incompetence deserve to be rewarded.

But what about the rest? When a child is born/adopted, do we have to pay benefits until the kid graduates college? Or bereavement; exactly how long should bereavement last? It gives a length of time for minors, but that could be an awfully long time. If the child is a baby, the person caring for that child will be suckling from the government for a very long time. It doesn't say anything about adult dependents though. I guess that's up to the Lords and I to decide.


I agree, this act doesnt need to be passed, and if it is passed, it should be repealed immediately. Governments should be able to deal with welfare on their own terms, and if they cant, then thats their problem.
A New Ideology!
Factbook
Current Commander-In-Chief: General Hans Albeer
Total Military Strength- 65,000,000 (10,000,000 Active, 55,000,000 Reserve)

Personnel Distribution:
National Guard: 1,500,000
Army: 18,000,000
Air Force: 16,500,000
Air Defense Network: 5,000,000
Navy: 15,000,000
Coast Guard: 6,000,000
Special Forces: 3,000,000

Military Alert Level- {5}4321

Current Fuhrer: Ernst Ueden
Current Senate Majority Ideology: National Conservative Party
Current Minister of Defense: General Marc Antoin
Current Minister of the Navy: Albert Tytia
Current Minister of Aerial Defense: Hanf von Skovi
Current Minister of Economics: Rubert Eichfon
Current Supreme Judge: Karl Luntung
Current Minister of Foreign Affairs: Skott Nister

User avatar
Romivul WA Mission
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jul 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Romivul WA Mission » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:50 pm

The Republic of Romivul wishes to call to attention the fact that ''Safety in Difficult Times'' act violates two major articles of the ''Rights and Duties of WA States'' resolution. Section I: Article 2 says:

'' Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.''

In other words, the WA has no right to force a nation into providing welfare for it's people.

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.


This part states that every WA nation has independence and cannot be forced into providing welfare. It also states that if their form of government is an anti-welfare capitalist one then the WA has no right to force them to do otherwise which the ''Safety in Difficult Times'' act would do.
Vote against the ''Safety in Difficult Times'' resolution.' The WA has no right to force WA members into giving welfare as stated by Section 1 Articles One and Two of the ''Rights and Duties of WA members'' resolution.

User avatar
Kommenori
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jul 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Kommenori » Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:00 pm

It will be quite difficult to repeal 'Safety in Difficult Times' judging by the margin of support the whole thing seems to have in the WA.
Nonetheless we support this initiative.

User avatar
Dilsnufi
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: May 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dilsnufi » Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:08 pm

Romivul WA Mission wrote:We feel the ''Safety In Difficult Times'' resolution also violates Article 3 Section 1 of the ''Rights and Duties of WA States'' resolution passed some time ago.

''Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.''

Here, Here!

User avatar
Arivali
Envoy
 
Posts: 229
Founded: Jun 15, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Arivali » Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:39 pm

Repeal Safety In Difficult Times
Category: Repeal

Repeal “Safety in Difficult Times”

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #156: Safety in Difficult Times (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

OBSERVING the need to provide safety nets and protection in Difficult Times.

APLAUDING all countries that are and have been providing welfare to persons located in their jurisdiction.

REALIZING not all countries have the resources to do so; especially in hard economic times.

NOTING, It specifies that unemployment benefits be given to those involuntarily unemployed. It does not mention those involuntarily unemployed due to being fired for incompetence, among many other reasons one may be fired. This leaves a loophole open for those who are unwilling to work to cause themselves to be fired and receive benefits.
ALSO NOTING the bereavement clause is unneeded. While the loss of a loved one is a terrible thing, it does not require an able-bodied person to be out of work for any significant amount of time. Therefore, benefits to not need to be given.

WORRIES about section 5b;Pensions for survivors who are minors. It states that benefits shall last until they have attained a basic education and are able to work. This is a very long time for anyone to receive benefits, especially if the surviving dependant is a young child at the time of the parent’s death. This would allow the child’s guardian to live off the government dime for the child’s entire life, and not be a productive member of society. There is no reason the child’s guardian could not obtain work in a reasonable amount of time.
ARGUES this is an attempt at international welfare, which each member nation is capable of seeing to themselves if they are able and willing. Many have them already, which renders this resolution redundant.
FRIGHTENED that the costs of resolution # 156 may force nations to raise taxes, which may cripple already struggling economies.


ADDITIONALLY, Article 3 of WA resolution #2 “Rights and Duties of WA States”; “Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.”
Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
RESOLVES that the “Safety in Difficult Times” resolution is poorly worded, ambiguous, full of loopholes that can be abused, and addresses an issue that should be resolved domestically.

HEREBY REPEALS “Safety in Difficult Times”


How's this?

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads