Senior Citizens Act

[Parti Ouvrier]

Senior Citizens Act

[Philimbesi]

-No compulsory retirement on the basis of age. The right to
retirement from age 60 for all workers - at 55 in unpleasant and
dangerous occupations.

And for the nations in this body whose life spans are longer than normal human life spans? Or for those whose are considerably shorter? Unpleasant as defined by whom?

-The state pension should be set at the level of the minimum
wage, and should be paid to everyone who has reached
retirement age and wants to give up work.

For nations that don't pay into a pension system? My nation has no pension system we believe that a citizen has the responsiblty to ensure they are secure in there investments and savings and need to hand holding.

State provision to enable the elderly to live
independently if they so desire, for as long as they are physically
or mentally capable of doing so. There should be no compulsory
institutionalisation.

Institutionalization of the elderly is a decision for the person and the family to make, not the state. And with over a billion retired citizens we're not inclined to pay for it for everybody.

-Social clubs for the elderly should be democratic and
subsidised by the state, not charities.

Possibly we could also devote a branch of government to tuck them in and read them a nice story every night? Or a government sponsored breakfast-in-bed program? Charities do a much better job at ensure that the needs of the few are covered than the government can every possibly do.

-The comfort and dignity of the dying must be ensured at all
times. Euthanasia and disposal of the body after death should
be carried out according to the wishes of the individual

We've covered that.

[Parti Ouvrier]

'And for the nations in this body whose life spans are longer than normal human life spans? Or for those whose are considerably shorter?'

Your point exactly? If people live shorter live spans they will not retire, most likely they will be too ill to work anyway. I'm sure a GA proposal typically covers that, if not why not? If they live longer, they can work longer if they like, if not, it's not as if the unemployed can't cover that.

The unpleasantness will be decided democratically. For example, cleaning sewers is arguably unpleasant, so is mining for rare earth elements. Feel free to contribute.

Lastly, you ended with 'we've covered that', exactly.

[Philimbesi]

Actually if a nation who's life span is hundreds of years the age of 55 or 60 could mean they are children and if this drivel ever see's the light of day that would mean that international law forces them to retire before they can work at all or long enough to support their families. We are a vast body of different cultures and being, if you try and pigeon hole everyone into your species parameters you're going to run into problems

Feel free to contribute.

I'm sure those who are stuck in offices all day long will be happy to hear that international law would allow them to retire early providing they can get a majority of the vote. Of course those cleaning sewer might disagree, hope they can get organized enough to vote on it.

Lastly, you ended with 'we've covered that', exactly.

I said that ambassador, because including euthanasia in this proposal could be considered a duplication of Resolution #54 and make this resolution not just pointless and ill-advised, but illegal.

[Parti Ouvrier]

You seem to have a great belief in charity, but charity is not democratically accountable. Charity can also be used to exclude the poor.

'The common meal, however, as a meal, had no point for the prosperous comrades. They ate and drank better and more conveniently at home. The simple, often coarse fare must have repelled jaded palates. If they took part in it, they came only to share in the community life, not to eat their fill. What for the others was the satisfaction of a bodily need was for them only the satisfaction of a spiritual need, partaking of bread and wine was a purely symbolic action. The more wealthy people there were in the community, the greater the number of those elements at the common meals who came only for the assembly and its symbols, not for meat and drink. So in the second century the actual common meals for the poorer members were separated from the merely symbolical meals for the whole community, and in the fourth century, after the church had become the dominant power in the state, the first kind of meals were crowded out of the assembly houses of the community, the churches. The common meals decayed further and in the next century were abolished completely. With that the most prominent feature of practical communism disappeared from the Christian community, and was replaced by charity, care for the poor and the sick, which has come down to our time, in a stunted form to be sure.
There was now nothing left in the community that could displease the rich. It was no longer a proletarian institution. The rich, who originally, if they failed to share their property with the poor, had been completely excluded from the “kingdom of God”, were now able to play the same role in that realm as in the “world of the devil,” and they made full use of the possibility.' [1]

Notes

1) Karl Kautsky, (1908) Foundations of Christianity
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky ... h13.htm#s2

[Parti Ouvrier]

Actually if a nation who's life span is hundreds of years the age of 55 or 60 could mean they are children and if this drivel ever see's the light of day that would mean that international law forces them to retire before they can work at all or long enough to support their families. We are a vast body of different cultures and being, if you try and pigeon hole everyone into your species parameters you're going to run into problems

Feel free to contribute.

I'm sure those who are stuck in offices all day long will be happy to hear that international law would allow them to retire early providing they can get a majority of the vote. Of course those cleaning sewer might disagree, hope they can get organized enough to vote on it.

Lastly, you ended with 'we've covered that', exactly.

I said that ambassador, because including euthanasia in this proposal could be considered a duplication of Resolution #54 and make this resolution not just pointless and ill-advised, but illegal.

Fixed

[Eireann Fae]

Rather than her usual custom of whispering into the ear of her translator, the Faerie Emissary of the Eireann Fae, Episky, flits angrily about, shouting (still very quiet on a Human scale) at the Ambassador from Parti Ouvrier. The Human girl does her best to keep up, speaking rapidly and at a bit of a higher volume than usual.

"This is an outrage! How dare you come into this esteemed Assembly and so blatantly disrespect non-Human species! Faeries have no natural lifespan, but even we feel for the younger-lived species represented throughout this great World, and those beyond! How would you feel if we proposed to set the age of retirement at five thousand years? By the standards of most species, Humans are the sickly ones! The longest lived of your sort are proud to reach a century in age. This is nothing compared to Faeries, Elves, or even tortoises! How presumptuous you must be to completely disregard sapient species that happen to have a shorter lifespan than Humans! This is complete outrageous, and certainly not worthy of the respect of the World Assembly! You should be ashamed of yourself! Of all the fucking ignorant, bastardly devious, fucking ASININE pieces of legislative SHIT, this has GOT to be among the WORST!" Quietly, the girl adds, "It gets less friendly from here, but I think the views of the Eireann Fae have been fairly expressed..."

Episky continues her tirade, apparently not bothered by the fact that her translator has stopped speaking. It's pretty clear from her actions and expressions what she thinks of the proposal, and Parti Ouvrier's defense of it.

[Philimbesi]

Fixed

As the draft still exists, I would suggest that it's not fixed.

[Grays Harbor]

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

Senior Citizens Act

BELIEVING:
People deserve a secure, dignified and comfortable old age. The
needs of the elderly should be met fully by the state and be
available by right. Old people must not suffer the humiliation
and anxiety of relying on charity.

DEMANDING:

-No compulsory retirement on the basis of age. The right to
retirement from age 60 for all workers - at 55 in unpleasant and
dangerous occupations.

-The state pension should be set at the level of the minimum
wage, and should be paid to everyone who has reached
retirement age and wants to give up work.

State provision to enable the elderly to live
independently if they so desire, for as long as they are physically
or mentally capable of doing so. There should be no compulsory
institutionalisation.

-Social clubs for the elderly should be democratic and
subsidised by the state, not charities.

Demand all you want to. This sort of social engineering is unwelcome to most here.

Also, what is the determing factor for "unpleasant occupations"? Hnh?

[Mesogiria]

Demand all you want to. This sort of social engineering is unwelcome to most here.

Also, what is the determing factor for "unpleasant occupations"? Hnh?

"Upon the advice of out Minister of Commerce and Economics, I am inclined to second this question. Without a clear delineation of what precisely constitutes an 'unpleasant occupation' this act would open the door to widespread abuse of the system.

[Syvorji]

This proposal is bloody stupid, especially for us Syvorjin's. We are human but it is really stupid for that resolution. It will not last for even 10 seconds. Anyways, if the history of the WA is compressed into 1 minute, this proposal will only be around for 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000015 seconds. How lame is that? Please, dump that resolution, read the stickies, swear the oath that you will follow the stickies, then make an actual proposal that is not as dumb as this.

Signed,
Lucas Chernenko
Syvorjin Ambassador to the WA since 2010
Secretary of the 69th Congress from 2004 to 2005

[Parti Ouvrier]

Yes, I'm clearly evil. I guess I should never underestimate the shrill voices of hysteria here from the conservative coalition of crybabies.

[Bears Armed]

OOC to Parti Ouvrier: perhaps, before trying to draft any more proposals, you should actually take the necessary time out in which to read and assimilate all of the game's official rules on this activity? I suggest this because you evidently haven't bothered to read [at least] the definitions of the 'Categories' yet...

[Parti Ouvrier]

Rather than her usual custom of whispering into the ear of her translator, the Faerie Emissary of the Eireann Fae, Episky, flits angrily about, shouting (still very quiet on a Human scale) at the Ambassador from Parti Ouvrier. The Human girl does her best to keep up, speaking rapidly and at a bit of a higher volume than usual.

"This is an outrage! How dare you come into this esteemed Assembly and so blatantly disrespect non-Human species! Faeries have no natural lifespan, but even we feel for the younger-lived species represented throughout this great World, and those beyond! How would you feel if we proposed to set the age of retirement at five thousand years? By the standards of most species, Humans are the sickly ones! The longest lived of your sort are proud to reach a century in age. This is nothing compared to Faeries, Elves, or even tortoises! How presumptuous you must be to completely disregard sapient species that happen to have a shorter lifespan than Humans! This is complete outrageous, and certainly not worthy of the respect of the World Assembly! You should be ashamed of yourself! Of all the fucking ignorant, bastardly devious, fucking ASININE pieces of legislative SHIT, this has GOT to be among the WORST!" Quietly, the girl adds, "It gets less friendly from here, but I think the views of the Eireann Fae have been fairly expressed..."

Episky continues her tirade, apparently not bothered by the fact that her translator has stopped speaking. It's pretty clear from her actions and expressions what she thinks of the proposal, and Parti Ouvrier's defense of it.

With resolution 97 I seriously doubt people live less than 60 years here in NS. However if they are too unhealthy to live beyond forty years, who's fault is that? I find it schizophrenic to point out that out, because if a nation can't be bothered to look after their population beyond forty, why would they care if they worked until forty?

[Grays Harbor]

Yes, I'm clearly evil. I guess I should never underestimate the shrill voices of hysteria here form the conservative coalition of crybabies.

We would like to thank the ambassador for confirming to us that their opinion is now worthless. You may be wise to try and listen to the advise given so far by those with considerably more experience crafting worthwhile proposals prior to making such insulting and pointless statements again.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Yes, I'm clearly evil. I guess I should never underestimate the shrill voices of hysteria here form the conservative coalition of crybabies.

We would like to thank the ambassador for confirming to us that their opinion is now worthless. You may be wise to try and listen to the advise given so far by those with considerably more experience crafting worthwhile proposals prior to making such insulting and pointless statements again.

And that gives you the right to patronize? I guess you're also an advocate of censorship, denial of enlightenment principles such as freedom of expression and speech.

'I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
-Voltaire

[Grays Harbor]

We would like to thank the ambassador for confirming to us that their opinion is now worthless. You may be wise to try and listen to the advise given so far by those with considerably more experience crafting worthwhile proposals prior to making such insulting and pointless statements again.

And that gives you the right to patronize? I guess you're also an advocate of censorship, denial of enlightenment principles such as freedom of expression and speech.

'I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
-Voltaire

Yes, it does, actually.

As for your other statement, that is just so much hot air. Do we wish to do away with insulting and pointless diatribes such as what you have been issuing? Yes. Are we in favour of censoring worthwhile statements which have an actual point? No.

So, you figure it out.

[Parti Ouvrier]

And that gives you the right to patronize? I guess you're also an advocate of censorship, denial of enlightenment principles such as freedom of expression and speech.

'I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
-Voltaire

Yes, it does, actually.

As for your other statement, that is just so much hot air. Do we wish to do away with insulting and pointless diatribes such as what you have been issuing? Yes. Are we in favour of censoring worthwhile statements which have an actual point? No.

So, you figure it out.

I've had many insults hurled at me, yet I chose to allow those the freedom of expression and speech, you clearly do not, making your statement pointless as well, hypocrite. I'll support your freedom of expression, even if you do not support mine.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Not very Moral Decency from Ms. Harper's point of view. No compulsory retirement on the basis of age is more of a free trade idea while the rest is social justice. In my opinion it could be split in two, but Ms. Harper cannot support anything more than no compulsory retirement for now.

[Meekinos]

Ugh, what a travesty of a proposal.

To the ambassador of Parti Ouvrier, you know that dictating a standard for retirement and the like will fly in the face of many cultures and species. It is also overly communist in its approach. It's a disgusting breech of civil rights.

The ages given for retirement are entirely too low even for most humans.

Our average retirement age is about 76 years old (mind you, we have no set age, though our laws require about 35 years of work). Some people do retire as young as 70 though it's unheard of it do so at a younger age unless there are extenuating circumstances. To what end is anything achieved if the age for retirement is set so low and at the peak of a person's life? They still have so much to offer. It's wrong to tell someone willing to work that they have to retire because they have reached a certain age.

If you want to grant older WA citizens the right to retire then allow retirement but don't give set ages. You'll only meet resistance to your ideas.

I personally find the suggested age of 60 for retirement repulsive. I have a lot more to offer and I am not about to retire just because the you have some strange idea about older workers.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Ugh, what a travesty of a proposal.

To the ambassador of Parti Ouvrier, you know that dictating a standard for retirement and the like will fly in the face of many cultures and species. It is also overly communist in its approach. It's a disgusting breech of civil rights.

The ages given for retirement are entirely too low even for most humans.

Our average retirement age is about 76 years old (mind you, we have no set age, though our laws require about 35 years of work). Some people do retire as young as 70 though it's unheard of it do so at a younger age unless there are extenuating circumstances. To what end is anything achieved if the age for retirement is set so low and at the peak of a person's life? They still have so much to offer. It's wrong to tell someone willing to work that they have to retire because they have reached a certain age.

If you want to grant older WA citizens the right to retire then allow retirement but don't give set ages. You'll only meet resistance to your ideas.

I personally find the suggested age of 60 for retirement repulsive. I have a lot more to offer and I am not about to retire just because the you have some strange idea about older workers.

In case you had not noticed, the retirement age is voluntary, that means you could work beyond sixty if you like, hence, 'no compulsory retirement.....' Please at least read the proposal rationally, your reactionary approach has clouded your judgment.
I say it again, they do not have to retire at 60 or 55.

[Grays Harbor]

Yes, it does, actually.

As for your other statement, that is just so much hot air. Do we wish to do away with insulting and pointless diatribes such as what you have been issuing? Yes. Are we in favour of censoring worthwhile statements which have an actual point? No.

So, you figure it out.

I've had many insults hurled at me, yet I chose to allow those the freedom of expression and speech, you clearly do not, making your statement pointless as well, hypocrite. I'll support your freedom of expression, even if you do not support mine.

You have had many insults and considerable derision aimed at this travesty of a proposal. Do not mistake that for personal insults. Your comments, on the other hand, have been quite personal in nature. Perhaps you should look into that.

[Mesogiria]

"Excuse me," says Kelly Rodriquez, the head of the Mesogiria delegation, "But if I could just get an answer to the question raised earlier, namely, who decides what constitutes a so-called 'unpleasant occupation,' it would be much easier for my government to form an opinion on this proposal, and to suggest improvements for it."

[Parti Ouvrier]

I've had many insults hurled at me, yet I chose to allow those the freedom of expression and speech, you clearly do not, making your statement pointless as well, hypocrite. I'll support your freedom of expression, even if you do not support mine.

You have had many insults and considerable derision aimed at this travesty of a proposal. Do not mistake that for personal insults. Your comments, on the other hand, have been quite personal in nature. Perhaps you should look into that.

No, you are wrong, I have had very personal aggressive, irrational statements made toward me in the past. As you'd expect, I've become battle hardened.

[Bears Armed]

The draft's text appears to have vanished...