Right to Technonlogy

[Absolvability]

Well, my concerns are fairly minor. My opposition really, as a whole, stems from the fact that I think better legislation could be written along these lines. Not agricultural technology, per se, but a better means of eliminating hunger. Different road, same destination, you know? I was a bit of a fan of that Food Welfare Act, wherever that went off to.

More specifically... I don't like the name of this proposal. Right to Technology? Meh, more like... Access to Agricultural Technology. Just for cataloguing purposes, really. A year from now I'm going to be going through the list of past resolutions and not know what the heck this one is talking about.

Also:
"REQUESTS that all citizens submit their requests to the UTDB for a review of their situation to be decided on a case by case basis;"

I said something snide earlier about this meaning a lot of paperwork. More seriously, I mean this is a very inefficient and expensive way to go about things. Don't you think one tractor will suffice for several citizens? Or even a village? Let a nation send in requests, not individual citizens. It's more cost and time efficient.

[Meekinos]

Also:
"REQUESTS that all citizens submit their requests to the UTDB for a review of their situation to be decided on a case by case basis;"

I said something snide earlier about this meaning a lot of paperwork. More seriously, I mean this is a very inefficient and expensive way to go about things. Don't you think one tractor will suffice for several citizens? Or even a village? Let a nation send in requests, not individual citizens. It's more cost and time efficient.

That is a good point that we didn't think of, but now that we see it, we are inclined to agree. It may be a good idea to include a provision to encourage nations to submit the applications on behalf of their citizens rather than having individuals do it. We like this idea.

[Philimbesi]

We rise to object to this proposal on the grounds that there are no safeguards to ensure that the food planted and grown by this equipment is actually distributed to the people it's being given to benefit. The notion that simply removing the equipment in the event that the system is abused does nothing more to help the hungry.

Further we second the points mentioned by the ambassadors from Absolvabilty and Meekinos.

[Aegara]

I realise where you are coming from with the individual citizen thing and I did originally have that but this way reduces corruption and also goes directly to the people which, while more inefficient, almost compeletly eliminates any misuse of the system.

The point of the yearly inspections is meant to discourage all kinds of problems such as non distribution so I think that it is a moot point.

[Absolvability]

Lets deal with abuse of the system after it occurs instead of intentionally flawing the system pre-emptively.

I think you'll find (-cough-gamecoding-cough-) that whatever you mandate takes effect. So you should mandate what you want to mandate.

[Gewinny]

REQUESTS that all citizens submit their requests to the UTDB for a review of their situation to be decided on a case by case basis

I think this could stand to be rephrased, besides the proposed change to 'nations' rather than 'citizens'.
The wording 'all citizens' could be taken as implying that all citizens should or must, even if they have better technology or simply do not want the technology. I think that something like

REQUESTS that all citizens who believe they require advanced agricultural technology submit their requests to the UTDB for a review of their situation to be decided on a case by case basis

would be less ambiguous and clearly show that this is a choice the nations can make, which is the message I got from every clarification in this thread.

[Aegara]

It was more intended as "all citizens who wish to make requests..." but I can see how it could be misconstrued.

[Philimbesi]

Ambassador I appologize if you feel as though I'm belaboring the point however, the fact that you put no provisions in the resolution and left it up to the nation, means your regular inspections are meaningless.

The only thing your inspectors can do is stop in and see if they are using the tractors. Which they are and if they are using them, well isn't that exactly what the law wants them to do?

[Aegara]

Ambassador I think that you have got that slightly wrong, for instance if someone was breaking up tractors for scrap metal then they would recieve no more. That is the point of that phrase.

[Philimbesi]

Ambassador I think that you have got that slightly wrong, for instance if someone was breaking up tractors for scrap metal then they would recieve no more. That is the point of that phrase.

Ah. Ok well then that's fine but that doesn't address my concern about distribution.

Is this goal to make sure that tractors are sold or help fight hunger or poverty?

[Aegara]

Sorry but I dont quite understand what you are saying could you please elaborate on your last comment. If it means what I think it means then of course the job of this is to give people agricultural materiels and therefore lift them out of poverty.

[Philimbesi]

Forgive me ambassador but I really fail to understand how that will work. Especially when you make no attempt to control the output of the agriculture, oppressive nations will not let the citizens have the revenue.

To say nothing of the fact that there are nations in the body that you could send fleets of tractors, box cars of fertilizer, and all the farming experts you have to and the soil simply will not grow sustainable crops.

[The Realm of The Realm]

There is a kind of romantic charm to the idea that just giving poor people X will lift them out of poverty; it's wonderfully naive, and I submit it represents one of the worst kinds of wishful-thinking-do-good-ism. It also happens to be one of the most potent kinds of self-indulgence available to anyone who likes to feel good about themselves and depends on the (uninformed) opinions of others to catch that wave of (deluded) affirmation.

Poverty is the result of, and the symptom of, a system of interactions in social, political, and economic models of practice, grounded in geophysical reality.

Previously, I have stated that where a tractor (to be concrete) has negative economic value then giving a tractor in such a situation is actually doing a disservice, a harm, to the recipient.

So, the resolution contemplates having a REQUEST REVIEW process. I assume (for the moment) that this review process will deny any request (made in ignorance or stupidity) where there is clearly a negative economic value to such a transfer. What is not equally clear is whether the review board will deny requests by those who clearly can afford to pay for such technology but who seek to get it free because the WA has adopted this resolution.

It's not clear from the text of the resolution WHAT CRITERIA the review process will employ.

So I will vote AGAINST.