NationStates

OOC: This is intended to replace the repealed GA#344. Also, it is my first time writing a WA proposal, so constructive criticism and feedback is appreciated. Sorry if some parts feel like plagarism.

Minimum Standard of Living Proposal
Category:Social Justice | Strength:Strong

Believing that a minimum standard of living should be granted to all individuals,

The General Assembly:

1. Defines the “minimum standard of living”, for the purposes of this resolution, as the necessary amount of food and nutrition and adequate access to hygiene, housing, transport, and appropriate utilities and conditions of care which a person needs to live with health and dignity.

2. Asserts that all member states of this Assembly must provide this minimum standard of living to those living within their territory.

3. Encourages member states to promote this guarantee via providing incentives, financial or otherwise, to companies which assist in this guarantee.

4. In the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard of living, authorizes the World Assembly Compliance Commission and the Independent Adjudicative Office to determine the culpability of the member nation.

4.1. In the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard of living, but is not found to be culpable, the WA Development Foundation may, on that government's request, work with that government to improve infrastructure in order to provide the minimum standard of living as soon as possible.

Opposed on ideological grounds. Too much welfare. Also unaffordable to most governments.

Wait, why are member states allowed to deny refugees a minimum standard of living?

Simone Republic wrote::blink: Opposed on ideological grounds. Too much welfare. Also unaffordable to most governments

OOC: MSoLA was on the books for 7 years and wasn't much different as far as welfare and affordability is concerned.

---

New Kowloon Bay wrote:1. Defines the “minimum standard of living”, for the purposes of this resolution, as the necessary amount of food and nutrition and adequate access to hygiene, housing, transport, and appropriate utilities and conditions of care, to the extent that no person should need to satisfy these needs by degrading themselves(begging, forced labor etc.)

IC: "This definition seems a bit strange. We want a minimum standard of living for people so that they can live - not to prevent them from 'degrading themselves'."

New Kowloon Bay wrote:3. Permits each member state to create an internal body which will judge hard-to-handle cases where individuals may fall in gray areas, or that providing them a
minimum standard of living may cause a drain on public funds with no chance of retribution, such as:

3.1. Undocumented immigrants, or those seeking asylum.

3.2. Those who refuse to contribute to society, to make up for crimes they have been found guilty of by a court of law.

3.3. Those who refuse to try to support themselves without government assistance.

3.3.1. “Supporting themselves” is defined as trying to get a job or engaging in government-mandated job training.

3.3.2. This clause is upheld unless an individual is unable to support themselves physically or mentally, for example children and teenagers, or otherwise backed
up by the decision of a medical professional.

"This is even worse than GA#344 was. One of the reasons our delegation repealed #344 was:"

3. Section 4 enshrines institutional discrimination by creating exemptions for several highly stigmatized groups of people, such as undocumented immigrants, criminals who have not made “a good faith attempt to make restitution”, and the unemployed who have not made “a good faith attempt to support themselves without government assistance … without a legitimate reason”, without providing any justification for why these groups should be excluded.

"Our delegation believes a minimum standard of living should apply equally to all, not just a select group."

Heidgaudr wrote:IC: "This definition seems a bit strange. We want a minimum standard of living for people so that they can live - not to prevent them from 'degrading themselves'."

Changed definition.

Heidgaudr wrote:"Our delegation believes a minimum standard of living should apply equally to all, not just a select group.

Deleted clause for now.

New Kowloon Bay wrote:

1. Defines the “minimum standard of living”, for the purposes of this resolution, as the necessary amount of food and nutrition and adequate access to hygiene, housing, transport, and appropriate utilities and conditions of care, to the extent that they are healthy and able to work for the benefit of society.

Ms. Gutierrez: "Speaking for and as Maricela Gutierrez, I am certainly in support of ensuring that our august Assembly applies our resources to the wellbeing of all people! How can we bear to have at our disposal so many resources and yet not wield them for those in need?"

Ms. Gutierrez: "That being said, I think there are three problems with the draft. I will start with one that I presume is unintentional. Clause #1 currently says that the minimum standard of living is defined as 'the necessary amount of food and nutrition and adequate access" and so forth "to the extent that they [the recipient, I assume?] are healthy and able to work for the benefit of society.' I suspect you meant to say that the minimum standard of living should provide sufficient 'food and nutrition and' so forth so that a recipient can be and is 'healthy and able to work.' However, the way it's been written reads as saying that the minimum standard of living will be defined relative to a person who is healthy and able to work. In other words, enough resources dispensed to meet the needs of a healthy person. But what about unhealthy people? What about chronically ill people who would need much more in terms of access to care and so forth than a healthy person would? I think this clause needs further rephrasing. Perhaps to something like this:"

1. Defines the “minimum standard of living”, for the purposes of this resolution, as the necessary food and nutrition and adequate access to hygiene, housing, transport, appropriate utilities and conditions of care, education, and justice which a person needs to live with health and dignity.

Ms. Gutierrez: "The second problem with the draft is in clause #3. Why encourage member states to fulfill the requirements of clause #2 by financially incentivizing private companies? Is that method really so disparately effective it needs to be called out? Requiring the guarantee's fulfillment seems sufficient.

Ms. Gutierrez: "My third qualm is with the WALSAC. Why is WALSAC determining whether that state should be held accountable for failing to provide a minimum standard of living only in cases where there are extenuating circumstances? Would it not be simpler to assign WALSAC to assess culpability simply "in the event a member state fails to provide a minimum standard of living"? Wouldn't that cover both circumstantial and willful failures to comply?

Maricela Gutierrez wrote:What about chronically ill people who would need much more in terms of access to care and so forth than a healthy person would? I think this clause needs further rephrasing.

I have changed the last phrase of the first clause.

Maricela Gutierrez wrote:Ms. Gutierrez: "The second problem with the draft is in clause #3. Why encourage member states to fulfill the requirements of clause #2 by financially incentivizing private companies? Is that method really so disparately effective it needs to be called out? Requiring the guarantee's fulfillment seems sufficient.

I think member states should be provided with guidance on how to fulfil this guarantee further.

Maricela Gutierrez wrote:Ms. Gutierrez: "My third qualm is with the WALSAC. Why is WALSAC determining whether that state should be held accountable for failing to provide a minimum standard of living only in cases where there are extenuating circumstances? Would it not be simpler to assign WALSAC to assess culpability simply "in the event a member state fails to provide a minimum standard of living"? Wouldn't that cover both circumstantial and willful failures to comply?

I have removed the part in brackets to clarify the meaning of the clause.

Bump.

New Kowloon Bay wrote:Establishes the World Assembly Living Standard Assurance Committee(WALSAC), which in the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard
of living , will determine the culpability of the member nation.

Ooc: This has some funky grammar; use the following,

Establishes the World Assembly Living Standard Assurance Committee (WALSAC), which in the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard of living, will determine the culpability of the member nation.

That said, how is this not already fulfilled by GA #390 and GA #440, which allow the WACC to bring cases with the IAO against member nations' non-compliance; and for the IAO to determine whether enacting a fine is appropriate based on factors including "the state's objective intent to commit noncompliance" and "the good faith nature of the state's actions proximate to a violation"?

I think it would also be worth creating a mandate that where a member nation can show to eg the General Accounting Office that they are unable to otherwise providing this minimum standard of living, they can receive funds from the WA General Fund, since otherwise this may be too burdensome on poorer or less-developed nations. That said, if you choose to do so you should consider the provisions of GA #226 to avoid duplication or contradiction.

Your first clause also does not match the current text of the active clauses, as it states "those willing to work for the benefit of society" should have a minimum standard of living; while your active clauses require all member nation citizens to receive a minimum standard of living. I would suggest changing "those willing to work for the benefit of society" to simply "all individuals".

Finally, how does the current text apply to individuals who are citizens of a member nation, but no longer live in that member nation? I would encourage you to change "their citizens" to "those living within their territory" in the second clause; so that member nations are not required to provide a minimum standard of living to individuals living elsewhere; and so that individuals in that member nation who do not necessarily hold citizenship (eg refugees who have not yet been naturalised) are also included.

Good luck!

The Ice States wrote:
That said, how is this not already fulfilled by GA #390 and GA #440, which allow the WACC to bring cases with the IAO against member nations' non-compliance; and for the IAO to determine whether enacting a fine is appropriate based on factors including "the state's objective intent to commit noncompliance" and "the good faith nature of the state's actions proximate to a violation"?

I have changed the clause and made references to the two GA proposals.

The Ice States wrote:I think it would also be worth creating a mandate that where a member nation can show to eg the General Accounting Office that they are unable to otherwise providing this minimum standard of living, they can receive funds from the WA General Fund, since otherwise this may be too burdensome on poorer or less-developed nations. That said, if you choose to do so you should consider the provisions of GA #226 to avoid duplication or contradiction.

New clause with reference as well.

The Ice States wrote:Your first clause also does not match the current text of the active clauses, as it states "those willing to work for the benefit of society" should have a minimum standard of living; while your active clauses require all member nation citizens to receive a minimum standard of living. I would suggest changing "those willing to work for the benefit of society" to simply "all individuals".

Changed.

The Ice States wrote:Finally, how does the current text apply to individuals who are citizens of a member nation, but no longer live in that member nation? I would encourage you to change "their citizens" to "those living within their territory" in the second clause; so that member nations are not required to provide a minimum standard of living to individuals living elsewhere; and so that individuals in that member nation who do not necessarily hold citizenship (eg refugees who have not yet been naturalised) are also included.

Also changed.

Bump.

Bump again.

Bump.

Last call...?

New Kowloon Bay wrote:4.1. In the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard of living, but is not found to be culpable, mandates the government to approach the WA Development Foundation to improve infrastructure in order to provide the minimum standard of living as soon as possible..

You have an extra full stop at the end. I believe this should be optional, rather than mandatory, so as to avoid forcing aid upon member nations; here is an amendment.

4.1. In the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard of living, but is not found to be culpable, the WA Development Foundation may, on that government's request, work with that government to improve infrastructure in order to provide the minimum standard of living as soon as possible.

If this is addressed, I can support this.

The Ice States wrote:

New Kowloon Bay wrote:4.1. In the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard of living, but is not found to be culpable, mandates the government to approach the WA Development Foundation to improve infrastructure in order to provide the minimum standard of living as soon as possible..

You have an extra full stop at the end. I believe this should be optional, rather than mandatory, so as to avoid forcing aid upon member nations; here is an amendment.

4.1. In the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard of living, but is not found to be culpable, the WA Development Foundation may, on that government's request, work with that government to improve infrastructure in order to provide the minimum standard of living as soon as possible.

If this is addressed, I can support this.

I have addressed this and will be submitting on Wednesday.

This proposal has been submitted.

I would vote yes to this one.

Withdrawn until I can get an API key.

"Full support."

Ooc: Change the thread title to the new title of the submission, Minimum Standard of Living Act.

"While we--my staff and I--have not yet made up our mind about the proposal as a whole, we do have two bits of advice. First, we would replace clause 3 with a statement that the rights protected by the proposal may be provided publicly, privately, or in combination, and that member nations which choose to privatize such services must ensure that they are freely available. Second, we do not see a problem with denying the 'minimum standard of living' to persons who have been convicted of crimes and have not made a good-faith effort to pay court-mandated restitution, if they have the ability to do so. There is little reason to require nations to give more to people who are already under orders to make amends and yet choose not to. As far as the law is concerned, their voluntary refusal to pay what they owe and are able to pay constitutes a theft from the victims and from the state itself. They don't need any more."

(OOC: I post here my thoughts on the proposal, from the TNP server.

Kenmoria wrote:I do wish that this proposal were more specific. The issue is not necessarily in terms of individual words, since definitions of those are common-sense, but more surrounding the way effect of the clauses. What does it mean that a minimum standard of living must be provided? Does that imply a certain level of governmental oversight or management of the provision of this standard, or would mere auditing to ensure that it provided sufficient? This feels as though it is a good framework, but lacking in detail.

However, the lack of detail does not make the proposal actively harmful, nor does it result in a potential for absurdity. If I were being nitpicking, I might say that this deserves a lower strength than strong, with even significant feeling too impactful, simply because of the vagueness in “minimum standard of living”. However, there is no genuine flaw catastrophic to the proposal.

Therefore, I am for this proposal.

I believe that the issue with regards to prisons, as Barfleur mentioned, should have been more explicit. To me, dignity does not require that much, so I do think that it could apply to the bare standard of life provided in prisons, but some clarification to that effect in the proposal would have been ideal.)

If the proposal does not reach quorum, then I will modify it and think about submitting maybe next week.

This proposal has reached quorum and is now in queue.