With the Intersteller Federation of DataGenesis at a population of 2.32 billion; the inevitable has occured. Aliens have landed in response to the supreme desire to gamble in our casinos with our children.

The nation has now reached the SUPREME form of government! ANARCHY! Ahhh yes.... some say it is the lowest form of government (or no government at all), but others believe it to be the extreme.

From our daily description; It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent, pro-business government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Social Welfare, Education, and Law & Order. Citizens pay a flat income tax of 65%. A substantial private sector is dominated by the Gambling industry.

Corporations are either above the law or corrupting it, public loudspeakers constantly tell citizens they are "happy people", young children are regularly seen wagering pocket money at blackjack tables, and citizens are frequently held up at gunpoint by their local pizza delivery boys. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is a serious problem. DataGenesis's national animal is the Puppy, which is also the nation's favorite main course, and its currency is the Shiney.

Ahhh the sweet sounds of commerce at work.........

Repeal "Elimination of Bio Weapons"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #16


Proposed by: Reformentia

Description: UN Resolution #16: Elimination of Bio Weapons (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: NOTING: UN resolution 16 for the "Elimination of Bio Weapons", although expressing an admirable goal, is completely inadequate to that goal. The text of the resolution contains nothing more than one statement describing the undesirable aspects of biological weapons and one statement saying it?s important to eliminate them. Unfortunately there are no statements:

-- Defining a single criteria for what specific weapons it's talking about
-- Establishing that they actually BE eliminated, rather than just saying it?s important.
-- Specifying how they should be eliminated (such as forbidding their elimination through using them all up on other nations).
-- Accounting for what should be done about the fact that non UN member nations will still have these weapons.
-- Etc?

FURTHER NOTING: That given these shortcomings it is currently possible for any nation to do ALL of the following without EVER being in breach of resolution 16:

--Produce biological weapons.
--Stockpile biological weapons.
--Trade in biological weapons.
--Actually USE biological weapons.

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with a new, effective resolution.

Fellow UN members,

As you all know, there are frequent discussions in the UN between several groups. Some of them are organized more or less. For example, there are a National Sovereignity coalition and a Morality coalition.

The International Democratic Union has worked on establishing ties with other, like-minded regions. Now is the time to use those friendships. What the UN needs is a progressive alliance. A group of regional delegates who want to make the world a better place by supporting well-written resolutions that incease human rights, freedom and democracy, and social welfare.

A network like that can be used to create more and better resolutions by working together. It would also be more easy to campaign for proposals. If one region in the network has created a resolution, others will know sooner and are able to support the proposal.

The central place for the network could be placed here, on the IDU forum. Here proposals will be discussed before they're "released into the wild", and proposals that are worthy of our attention can be posted here.

The working-title for this is the Progressive Alliance.

How do you feel about this?

The US House of Representatives passed a measure to change the US Constitution to make burning the US flag illegal.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...123_flag23.html

Quote: Thursday, June 23, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

House approves flag-burning ban; Senate may not
By LAURIE KELLMAN

The Associated Press
TOM REESE / THE SEATTLE TIMES

WASHINGTON ? A constitutional amendment to outlaw physical desecration of the American flag cleared the House yesterday but faced an uphill battle in the Senate, where an informal survey suggested it is one vote short of passage.

The 286-130 outcome was never in doubt in the House, which had passed the measure or one like it five times in recent years. The amendment's supporters expressed optimism that a Republican gain of four seats in November's election could produce the two-thirds approval needed in the Senate after four failed attempts since 1989.

But an informal Associated Press survey yesterday found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment, one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote, barring a change in position.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

...[/quote]

I do not care if you are an American or not, I'm more interested in just feeling out people's opinions. Please feel free to discuss and vote!

At some point in these next 24 hours, a milestone in the history of the Democratic Federation of Grosseschnauzer will be reached, as the oldest of the five schnauzervolk nations attains a population of over 1 billion citizens.

The commemorations will be subdued, out of respect to our late head of state, but the other schnauzervolk nations will also be reaching this threshhold over the next month or so, and these milestones will also be commemorated. When the last of the schnauzervolk nations attains this level, a national holiday and celebration will be declared.

I would like to initiate some discussion on this issue.

I initially lean toward supporting a ban, but I would like to see some arguments for and against before making an informed decision.

There is some hesitation on my part to treat this as a 'no-brainer', as is my inclination.

I believe that research of chemical weapons is critical in both the technological capability, as well as from a defensive standpoint. It does not appear that this resolution would ban such research.

Ban Chemical Weapons
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Mayakovskia

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;

NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;

REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;

BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.


Voting Ends: Wed Jun 15 2005

Protection of Dolphins Act

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: All Businesses


Proposed by: Real Paradise

Description: The United Nations,

RECONGNIZING that dolphins are extremely intelligent, man-loving and friendly mammals, that symbolize to millions around the world the spirit of freedom, happiness and togetherness,

ALARMED by the killing of dolphins around the world, whether intentional of accidental,

OBSERVING that the prevention of dolphin killings will not in any way hurt any of the states' economies,

RECALLING UN resolution #70 (Banning Whaling), and acknowledging that it accidentally omitted dolphins,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the intentional killing of dolphins around the world.

2. Declares that the hunting or intentional killing of dolphins in extra-territorial waters is a crime according to the International Law, unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for the saving of human lives or the prevention of an ecological disaster.

3. Urges all states to legislate a provision similar to that of article #2 above.

4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives.

Greetings IDUsts --

Now that I've reached the magic 500 million inhabitants mark, I've put my mind to the Daily Issues. I'll try a few, but this is my first.

There are a few Daily Issues dealing with the armed forces, but I want one that focuses on the "Military-Industrial Complex" as Dwight Eisenhower described it. DI #14 and #147 are about funding the military in general or specific tri-service projects. DI #157 has to do with training. DI #137 comes closest, but is still about moral issues and the international arms trade. I have tried to keep the focus on the intersection of economic and defence interests.

Even after reading some helpful threads on the main NS forum, I'm not sure if I have the hang of this. Would you care to read and comment for typographical or other errors as well as its ideas?



Valid if Government Priorities = DEFENSE and Major Industry not = ARMS MANUFACTURING

ISSUE NAME: In defence of our beloved @@TYPE@@

In a rare case of tri-service cooperation, Air Marshal @@RANDOMNAME@@ -- speaking on behalf of the army, navy and air force -- approaches you with a proposal. The air marshal says, "It would be a lot easier for us to buy new tanks, fighter planes and submarines if your government created a domestic arms industry. That way we could make the weapons systems appropriate for @@NAME@@."


1. @@RANDOM NAME@@, your ambitious cabinet colleague who is currently Trade Minister, enthusiastically agrees. "This is a great idea! We can export arms thoughout @@REGION@@ and improve our trade balance! Why, with the economic success of the arms trade, @@NAME@@ will finally take its rightful place in the economic and military councils of the world, and I, er, you will be there to represent us."

Strong increase in ARMS MANUFACTURING
Strong increase in COMMERCE
Slight decrease in ECONOMIC FREEDOM
Slight decrease in DEFENSE


2. Laissez-faire economist @@RANDOMNAME@@ of the Ivy League @@RANDOMNAME@@ University cautions you. "Arms are just another good, and the state should only rely on the free market to provide its military and naval needs. Sure, if @@NAME@@ goes to war against our current arms suppliers, it might cost a @@CURRENCY@@ or two more to buy parts and ammunition, but I'm sure the invisible hand of the market will be happy to provide for our military needs in time of war."

Strong increase in ECONOMIC FREEDOM
Slight decrease in DEFENSE


3. Pacifist @@RANDOMNAME@@ cries out in horror. "The air marshal is a warmonger! Why should we subsidize the war machine? Let's abolish the military entirely! Sure it might destabilize @@REGION@@, but non-violence is always the best path."

Strong increase in ECONOMIC FREEDOM
Strong decrease in DEFENSE
Slight decrease in LAW & ORDER


4. Suspiciously, both @@NAME@@'s right-wing Veterans of Unpopular Wars AND the nascent left-wing Union of Arms Workers -- who can't agree on anything else -- think this is a great idea.

Strong increase in ARMS MANUFACTURING
Slight decrease in ECONOMIC FREEDOM
Slight decrease in SOCIAL WELFARE


5. @@RANDOMNAME@@, a business executive, likes the idea and tells you in a private meeting where you are provided with a thick envelope of small unmarked @@CURRENCY@@s. "Let's develop a new combat aircraft that can fly at Mach 4, hover and dive into the ocean. We can call it the 'Fighting @@ANIMAL@@' to rally support. Of course, there might be some cost over-runs, but nothing a few 'confidential campaign contributions' won't fix."

Slight increase in ARMS MANUFACTURING
Strong decrease in ECONOMIC FREEDOM
Slight decrease of LAW & ORDER

Hi! I'm Tycholand and I'm writer of the Higher Education Act, which Groot Gouda posted on this forum for comments.

I would like to ask you all if you would be willing to support me to get this resolution through the UN and into the voting-booth.

I think I'll submit my resolution on Sunday.

If you would be willing to help me: I would appreciate that!

So far, I have the following resolution-proposal:

Resolution name: Higher Education Act
Category: Social Justice

The United Nations:

REALIZING with regret that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,

NOTICING that many rich nations fail to adequately fund higher education,

AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,

ALSO aware that:
- Students need to focus more on their study,
- Students, and in some cases parents, still pay a large part of the educational costs,
- Higher education can have a positive influence on the economy,
- Study-costs in poorer nations are lower than in richer nations.

POINTING OUT that students who achieve academic successes will attain a good job whereby they will contribute to the government by paying taxes. Thus there is little need to take into account the losses the government makes on the loans (rising inflation),

RECALLING UN resolution #28 where every person under the age of 18 receives a free education and

WANTING to go a step further than resolution #28

Calls for the implementation of the ?Higher Education Act? whereby all UN nations are:

- Required to finance at least 25% (for poorer nations) to 35% (for richer nations) of all students costs.

- Defines higher education as al levels of education which students can follow once they are above the age of 18, in particular university education,

- Required to give students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. The maximum interest rate will be the inflation-percentage of the year the loan was granted,
2. Those students will have to come from families who have a modal income, or below a modal income for the nation in question,
3. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does afterwards not have to pay for the ?missed-interests,?
4. Student loans may not take-up more than 2,5% of the total government budget, unless the government decides otherwise. If this is the case: all student loans will be evenly spread-out between the students until the 2,5% mark is reached.

- REMINDS nations that this resolution DOES NOT apply to
1. students who spend their money in an inappropriate way
2. students who do not gain academic successes.
3. students whose parents earn more than double the minimum wage which applies for that country.

- ALLOWS students to:
1. Participate in student organizations without fear of penalty and
2. allows and encourages students to have a part-time job next to their study, so they can (partly) finance their educational- and living-costs.

- CALLS ON governments to always properly finance higher education.

- ALLOWS nations to, if they wish, go further then the above resolution.