[PASSED] Social Assistance Accord

[Connopolis]

The Resolution can be found here.

Reduction of Social Disadvantage

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Signficant | Proposed by: Connopolis

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that sapient life is a right that should supersede all others, in both recognition, and applicability,

LAMENTING that many sapient beings are disadvantaged financially, compounded with their inability to accumulate an income due to a multitude of possible reason(s),

SEEKING to assist disadvantaged individuals, whenever possible, in order to propel them back into the workforce, to prevent them from becoming long-lasting burdens to society, and to promote general economic prosperity,

The World Assembly therefore resolves;

(1) All member-states shall develop Unemployment Insurance funds - in accordance with each nation's pre-existing Social Security system (excluding the lack thereof, or systems that do not meet the protocol of this resolution) - in which capital is collected from either state mechanisms, private enterprises, or a combination of the two, with the intent of temporarily sustaining individuals who are without a sufficient income, and their dependents.

(2) Individuals shall recieve these benefits under the following circumstances:

1. Involuntary unemployment, disability, and/or any other form of incapacitation,
2. Parental leave, in which a dependent is born/adopted, for a minimum of ten [10] weeks,
3. Should the individual have a severely ill dependent that requires constant, or frequent assistance,

(3) Enough Unemployment Insurance shall be provided to accomodate for the beneficiary, as well as all dependents legally residing within the beneficiary's residence; the beneficiary and unemployed dependents must recieve enough to obtain basic necessities, such as water, nourishment (sufficient enough to sustain the individual's health), rent/housing, and fundamental utilities, such as energy and plumbing.

(4) All individuals shall have immediate access to all information regarding Unemployment Insurance, benefits, and other such programs.

(5) Member states may withhold benefits against individuals convicted of serious fraud or benefit fraud;

(6) Member states may reduce benefits for individuals who are capable of work, but remain unemployed after a minimum of nine [9] months – provided that commitment is made to ensure access and/or incentives to further education and skills training.

(7) Nations shall reserve the right to:

a) Grant additional benefits not mentioned within the provisions of this resolution,
b) Employ individuals who able to work, yet involuntarily unemployed through public sector occupations,
c) Subsidize employment and/or work programs for individuals on long-term unemployment benefits,

[Herttora]

Reduction of Social Instability

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Signficant | Proposed by: Connopolis

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that sapient life is a right that should supersede all others, in both recognition, and applicability,

LAMENTING that many sapient beings are disadvantaged financially, compounded with their inability to accumulate an income due to a multitude of possible reason(s),

SEEKING to assist disadvantaged individuals, whenever possible, in order to propel them back into the workforce, to prevent them from becoming long-lasting burdens to society, and to promote general economic prosperity,

The World Assembly therefore resolves;

(1) All member-states shall develop Financial Assistance funds, in which capital is collected from either state mechanisms, private enterprises, or a combination of the two, with the intent of temporarily sustaining individuals without a sufficient income, and their dependents.

(2) Individuals shall recieve these benefits under the following circumstances:

1. Involuntary incapacitation, in which the individual is unable to work due to disability,
2. Parental leave, in which a dependent is born/adopted,
3. Should the individual have a severely ill dependent that requires constant, or frequent assistance,
4. Bereavement leave, specifically in the case of a relative's (parent, spouse, child, etc.) death,

(3) Enough Financial Assistance shall be provided to accomodate for the beneficiary, and one [1] dependent; the beneficiary and dependent must recieve enough to obtain basic necessities, such as water, nourishment (sufficient enough to sustain the individuals health), rent/housing, and fundamental utilities, such as energy and plumbing.

(3a) No Financial Assistance shall be granted to individuals that intentionally incapacitate themselves with the intent of recieving said benefits.

(4) All individuals shall have immediate access to all information regarding Financial Assistance, benefits, and other such programs.

(5) Individual nations may grant additional benefits, and implement additional protocol in regards to Financial Assistance, so long as the terms of this resolution are not violated.

(6) Member states shall have the ability to adjust the benefits of individuals found guilty of fraud (specifically in order to attain added benefits), notwithstanding this resolution. Member states are also at liberty to reduce Financial Assistance benefits, should the beneficiary remain unemployed for more than two years (104 weeks).

Originally my edits for Mahaj's proposal, but I thought this was a bit more specific than what Right to Life was trying to accomplish, so I edited it a bit, and Vi`ola! Edits, comments, criticism; you know the drill.

I'm not at all in support of this, but what I find most dangerous and lacking about it is no stated time period on the funding. How much leave you get for maternity or paternity is usually defined by the company, not the government. That time isn't defined here, nor reserved for others to define. Also, this gives an infinite cash flow to any parent of a child who has any serious illness. Childhood diabetes is very serious but it isn't an excuse for parents to loaf around and collect cash for the rest of their lives or child's life. The worst grievance is that for "workman's compensation." That needs a very strict time limit on it, and frankly I'd much rather this be handled with civil suit or by willing employers, rather than a blanket guarantee of cash for all people injured.

As I said originally, the base idea that any such thing is guaranteed or a right is frankly incorrect by the basis of definition of human rights, that being what only human society took away (freedom of religion, speech etc, in nature you aren't guaranteed food). However, I realize the use of the word right is spin to support what isn't an irrational belief that people should have a government safety net, though I do not agree with that either. Regardless of your opinion on those few matters, the time limit and specification issues are true for both sides of the fence. Meaning, that should be the focus of quite some revision.

[Connopolis]

I'm not at all in support of this, but what I find most dangerous and lacking about it is no stated time period on the funding. How much leave you get for maternity or paternity is usually defined by the company, not the government. That time isn't defined here, nor reserved for others to define. Also, this gives an infinite cash flow to any parent of a child who has any serious illness. Childhood diabetes is very serious but it isn't an excuse for parents to loaf around and collect cash for the rest of their lives or child's life. The worst grievance is that for "workman's compensation." That needs a very strict time limit on it, and frankly I'd much rather this be handled with civil suit or by willing employers, rather than a blanket guarantee of cash for all people injured.

As I said originally, the base idea that any such thing is guaranteed or a right is frankly incorrect by the basis of definition of human rights, that being what only human society took away (freedom of religion, speech etc, in nature you aren't guaranteed food). However, I realize the use of the word right is spin to support what isn't an irrational belief that people should have a government safety net, though I do not agree with that either. Regardless of your opinion on those few matters, the time limit and specification issues are true for both sides of the fence. Meaning, that should be the focus of quite some revision.

I believe this should cover most cases of unintentional unemployment:

(6) Member states shall have the ability to adjust the benefits of individuals found guilty of fraud (specifically in order to attain added benefits), notwithstanding this resolution. Member states are also at liberty to reduce Financial Assistance benefits, should the beneficiary remain unemployed for more than two years (104 weeks).

Granted, I do acknowledge your point about bereavement leave, and things of similar natures. I'll address your concerns in the next draft.

In regards to your opposition; I should hope that Herttora wound find it macabre if their streets were littered with the carcasses of the elderly and poor? Surely superfluous Financial Aid is debatable, however, enough to sustain an individual's well-being is a right. Unless, of course, one's view of a right contrasts sapient life.

Yours,

[Dizyntk]

"I have problems with the following clauses."

b.Parental leave, in which a dependent is born/adopted,

"Which parent will get said leave? Why should they have leave if a child merely adopted? Last I checked adoption caused no physical strain on either parent's bodies."

c.Should the individual have a severely ill dependent that requires constant, or frequent assistance

"For how long will they recieve these benefits? A severe illness could last theoretically for years."

(3) Enough Financial Assistance shall be provided to accomodate for the beneficiary, and one [1] dependent; the beneficiary and dependent must recieve enough to obtain basic necessities, such as water, nourishment (sufficient enough to sustain the individuals health), rent/housing, and fundamental utilities, such as energy and plumbing.

"What if they have no dependents? Do they still recieve the amount for the non-existent dependent? If so then why should they?"
"As the proposal currently is written we cannot support it but we are not opposed to the idea behind it."

[Connopolis]

"I have problems with the following clauses."

b.Parental leave, in which a dependent is born/adopted,

"Which parent will get said leave? Why should they have leave if a child merely adopted? Last I checked adoption caused no physical strain on either parent's bodies."

Ambassador, the leave is not only for the benefit of the individual, but for the adopted dependent. A relationship between the parent and the child, adopted or not, is integral in society^[1]

"For how long will they recieve these benefits? A severe illness could last theoretically for years."

A valid question; granted, benefits only last 2 years [104 weeks] before member-states are at liberty to reduce them. Any individual with an acute medical condition would need frequent attention, and anything less than two years is unsubstantial.

"What if they have no dependents? Do they still recieve the amount for the non-existent dependent? If so then why should they?"

Another legitimate point; I shall address this in the next draft. Financial Assistance shall be granted, proportional to the beneficiary, and shall increase with ever dependent. Surely a nuclear family with 15 children will not be able to sustain themselves by recieving assistance that is meant to protect 2 individuals?

"As the proposal currently is written we cannot support it but we are not opposed to the idea behind it."

Your highness Feyalisa, I shall address as many of your applicable concerns as possible.

Yours in warmth,

[Black Marne]

Truly, I am not sure what I am for this proposal. I want to say that this intrudes upon my right to choose whether or not my nation gives welfare, but at the same time, it is for fairly good reasons....hmmm....quite a quandary I am in.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

[Connopolis]

Truly, I am not sure what I am for this proposal. I want to say that this intrudes upon my right to choose whether or not my nation gives welfare, but at the same time, it is for fairly good reasons....hmmm....quite a quandary I am in.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

Your excellency, surely the state is not held solely responsible for providing financial assistance; as the proposal states, a member state's Financial Assistance budget may be funded by either the state, private mechanisms, or if need be, a combination thereof.

Yours in expressing the uses of private enterprise in regards sapient beings,

[Dizyntk]

"One further question, Dr. Forshaw, in regards to clause 2. What of individuals or families that do not require said assistance? As it is currently worded, (2)Individuals shall recieve these benefits under the following circumstances:, it would force us to give benefits even to wealthy or well off families and individuals that do not need or, in many cases, want it."

[Connopolis]

"One further question, Dr. Forshaw, in regards to clause 2. What of individual or families that do not require said assistance.? As it is currently worded, (2)Individuals shall recieve these benefits under the following circumstances:, it would force us to give benefits even to wealthy or well off families and individuals that do not need or, in many cases, want it."

A vital point, your excellency, and I thank you for correcting my mistake. I shall adjust the clause accordingly, and will present the second draft tomorrow, with all the necessary edits.

Yours in sincere gratitude,

[Herttora]

Granted, I do acknowledge your point about bereavement leave, and things of similar natures. I'll address your concerns in the next draft.

In regards to your opposition; I should hope that Herttora wound find it macabre if their streets were littered with the carcasses of the elderly and poor? Surely superfluous Financial Aid is debatable, however, enough to sustain an individual's well-being is a right. Unless, of course, one's view of a right contrats sapient life.

Yours,

Nothing about sapient life states it is guaranteed food. Sapient is only a worthwhile word when comparing the worth of two creatures one sapient and one not, or for the argument of will. Sapient is defined best by, once again I bring this exalted name up, Aristotle. His works on rationality defined why man is morally and logically justified to kill a non sapient being for food. My view contradicts nothing, specifically not historical facts. I need only to let my people thrive for them to thrive, because it is inherent in their ability. Most importantly, a huge amount of food kitchens for the homeless are run without a dime of government money. I don't need to damn my own economy to keep a very small minority of the extremely poor from starving, just rely on the inherent want to help.

Towards the edits, glad to see such edits will be made. I waited for the last social safety net bill to be repealed before joining the WA, I'd hate to see another bill replace it especially in its current form.

[Connopolis]

Granted, I do acknowledge your point about bereavement leave, and things of similar natures. I'll address your concerns in the next draft.

In regards to your opposition; I should hope that Herttora wound find it macabre if their streets were littered with the carcasses of the elderly and poor? Surely superfluous Financial Aid is debatable, however, enough to sustain an individual's well-being is a right. Unless, of course, one's view of a right contrats sapient life.

Yours,

Nothing about sapient life states it is guaranteed food. Sapient is only a worthwhile word when comparing the worth of two creatures one sapient and one not, or for the argument of will. Sapient is defined best by, once again I bring this exalted name up, Aristotle. His works on rationality defined why man is morally and logically justified to kill a non sapient being for food. My view contradicts nothing, specifically not historical facts. I need only to let my people thrive for them to thrive, because it is inherent in their ability. Most importantly, a huge amount of food kitchens for the homeless are run without a dime of government money. I don't need to damn my own economy to keep a very small minority of the extremely poor from starving, just rely on the inherent want to help.

Ambassador, you, of all people, should know that I thouroughly enjoy debating with you, as you have tremendous debating skills, obviously moreso than I, both pursuasively, and logically. However, I don't want to get side-tracked, and argue the philosophical merits of sapient rights. While it can be debated whether or not the poor deserve to live, I would like to see this proposal remain on topic.

Towards the edits, glad to see such edits will be made. I waited for the last social safety net bill to be repealed before joining the WA, I'd hate to see another bill replace it especially in its current form.

I hardly think I can top Safety in Difficult Times; Sionis Prioratus is considered one of the most prolific authors of all time, having authored milestone resolutions (Convention on Gender, Quality in Health Services, and Safety in Difficult Times), however, I do hope that this resolution addresses the concerns raised by the author of the repeal, as well as opponents of the idea, such as yourself.

Yours wanting to fall asleep,

[Pryssilvalia]

WA might as well mandate compulsory welfare for all states.

[Herttora]

I hardly think I can top Safety in Difficult Times; Sionis Prioratus is considered one of the most prolific authors of all time, having authored milestone resolutions (Convention on Gender, Quality in Health Services, and Safety in Difficult Times), however, I do hope that this resolution addresses the concerns raised by the author of the repeal, as well as opponents of the idea, such as yourself.

Yours wanting to fall asleep,

Agreed, too many unintentional red herrings begging for attention in this debate. However, yes those changes will certainty make this far more palatable.

[Dizyntk]

"One more major problem with Clause 2-d. Are you suggesting that every time someone loses a family member they have to see a psychologist? We oppose this as it is unnessecary in the vast majority of cases and extremely costly to implement. If we cannot come up with a better way of dealing with this particular reason then I would suggest striking the sub-clause."

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Sionis Prioratus tried something like this, and it didn't survive the first repeal. Opposed deeply.

[Southern Patriots]

SEEKING to prevent them from becoming long-lasting burdens to society,

Involuntary incapacitation, in which the individual is unable to work due to disability,

Member states are also at liberty to reduce Financial Assistance benefits, should the beneficiary remain unemployed for more than two years (104 weeks).

It almost looks like the maimed can be left to die after two years if they haven't gotten better. I suppose it does keep them from being a burden to society...

[Herttora]

SEEKING to prevent them from becoming long-lasting burdens to society,

Involuntary incapacitation, in which the individual is unable to work due to disability,

Member states are also at liberty to reduce Financial Assistance benefits, should the beneficiary remain unemployed for more than two years (104 weeks).

It almost looks like the maimed can be left to die after two years if they haven't gotten better. I suppose it does keep them from being a burden to society...

OOC: I don't know where you've been but in third world countries some people cut off their limbs to get more money whilst begging. If anything, a maimed person has better chance of surviving on charity than a person who permanently hurt his/her back...

[Southern Patriots]

It almost looks like the maimed can be left to die after two years if they haven't gotten better. I suppose it does keep them from being a burden to society...

OOC: I don't know where you've been but in third world countries some people cut off their limbs to get more money whilst begging. If anything, a maimed person has better chance of surviving on charity than a person who permanently hurt his/her back...

OOC: Which is neither here nor there with the wording I pointed out.

[Herttora]

OOC: I don't know where you've been but in third world countries some people cut off their limbs to get more money whilst begging. If anything, a maimed person has better chance of surviving on charity than a person who permanently hurt his/her back...

OOC: Which is neither here nor there with the wording I pointed out.

OOC: Actually, it is a direct counter to your point. You believe that the time limit stops maimed people from getting their basic needs. I gave a real life example of how maimed people are more capable than people without overt disabilities at getting their basic needs from charitable people. Thus, making your point entirely invalid.

If it is then your point that people with basic disabilities are 'maimed', which is incorrect, those people can easily re-enter the workforce in various areas. They might not be able to work at the dock anymore, but there are jobs. Not to mention for any truly serious injury the law suit on the employer will get that person all the money they will ever need.

[Southern Patriots]

OOC: Which is neither here nor there with the wording I pointed out.

OOC: Actually, it is a direct counter to your point. You believe that the time limit stops maimed people from getting their basic needs. I gave a real life example of how maimed people are more capable than people without overt disabilities at getting their basic needs from charitable people. Thus, making your point entirely invalid.

If it is then your point that people with basic disabilities are 'maimed', which is incorrect, those people can easily re-enter the workforce in various areas. They might not be able to work at the dock anymore, but there are jobs. Not to mention for any truly serious injury the law suit on the employer will get that person all the money they will ever need.

OOC: If you can't make your point IC, then you're not really countering it. OOC for this is akin to RL, and in RL there may well be some people who get their needs from the charitable. Which you didn't actually give a real life example of, you just said it. So your entire point is invalid.

Your second point operates under incorrect assumptions of what I said and doesn't warrant further note. You're new, so I understand you may be confused. But argue my IC points IC, unless debating a game mechanic of some kind.

[Herttora]

OOC: If you can't make your point IC, then you're not really countering it. OOC for this is akin to RL, and in RL there may well be some people who get their needs from the charitable. Which you didn't actually give a real life example of, you just said it. So your entire point is invalid.

Your second point operates under incorrect assumptions of what I said and doesn't warrant further note. You're new, so I understand you may be confused. But argue my IC points IC, unless debating a game mechanic of some kind.

OOC: I make counter points in OOC whenever using real life examples, because they, of course, are not in the NS world. This says nothing about the argument itself, and is frankly a low ploy to try and state because it is OOC it doesn't matter. A new form of wank perhaps, or is this just a continuation of NS!=RL wank? If you wish to ignore it, fine.

I did indeed give a real life example, in third world countries, including a country as economically powerful as India, those events happen. Did you want a specific name? Perhaps this will do
http://www.childright.nl/en/index2.php?navid=212
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rofit.html.
Enjoy. I thoroughly enjoy your accepting that people do indeed get what they need from charity.

Finally, my second point operates under no false assumption. There are jobs that disabled people can do, and civil suit for unsafe and unfair working environments should be allowed by any just nation. If it is then your argument that some nations do not allow this, as a point for this resolution to exist, then write a resolution on that problem not a varied result of that problem.

[Southern Patriots]

OOC: I make counter points in OOC whenever using real life examples, because they, of course, are not in the NS world. This says nothing about the argument itself, and is frankly a low ploy to try and state because it is OOC it doesn't matter. A new form of wank perhaps, or is this just a continuation of NS!=RL wank? If you wish to ignore it, fine.

I did indeed give a real life example, in third world countries, including a country as economically powerful as India, those events happen. Did you want a specific name? Perhaps this will do
http://www.childright.nl/en/index2.php?navid=212
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rofit.html.
Enjoy. I thoroughly enjoy your accepting that people do indeed get what they need from charity.

Finally, my second point operates under no false assumption. There are jobs that disabled people can do, and civil suit for unsafe and unfair working environments should be allowed by any just nation. If it is then your argument that some nations do not allow this, as a point for this resolution to exist, then write a resolution on that problem not a varied result of that problem.

OOC: RL =/= NS. Instead of telling me about how in RL third world nations let maimed people live off of charity, tell me how a resolution proposal should do that. Don't just assume that because it may work in one place in RL that it definitively works in every place in NS. I thoroughly enjoy your assumption that what happens in one place = the world! Or do you intend for the resolution to read: the maimed can depend on charity because it works in India?
Secondly, I didn't say false assumption, I said incorrect assumption of what I said previously.

Edit: So to clarify, from your earlier statement that "maimed people are more capable than people without overt disabilities at getting their basic needs from charitable people," you point is that we should leave their care to charity. Correct?

[Grays Harbor]

We cannot support mandated welfare.

[Southern Patriots]

We cannot support mandated welfare.

Hear, hear.

[Herttora]

OOC: RL =/= NS. Instead of telling me about how in RL third world nations let maimed people live off of charity, tell me how a resolution proposal should do that. Don't just assume that because it may work in one place in RL that it definitively works in every place in NS. I thoroughly enjoy your assumption that what happens in one place = the world! Or do you intend for the resolution to read: the maimed can depend on charity because it works in India?
Secondly, I didn't say false assumption, I said incorrect assumption of what I said previously.

Edit: So to clarify, from your earlier statement that "maimed people are more capable than people without overt disabilities at getting their basic needs from charitable people," you point is that we should leave their care to charity. Correct?

I never suggested a resolution should propose any such thing. I did, however, suggest that there are countries in which the laws are sufficient to deal with all circumstances here in their own manner. Thus, not requiring any such bill to do so for them in this vastly welfare state manner. It is proofs all over again. To prove any statement false I need only find one case where it is false. I was not attempting to prove that charity and only charity should be done in every nation every time. If I were attempting the latter, then I would have to prove how certain cases suggest generality, but since I was merely disproving, one and only one case is required.

What I argued was that in no way does the two year time limit threaten maimed people anymore than otherwise disabled people. It simply isn't true that maimed people deserve to live the rest of their lives off of government teet.