[random_factor]

Hi. I was told that this is a good place to get advice and constructive criticism for a proposal. I'm from Futaba Aoi, and my proposal is outlined below.

This is a pretty straightforward resolution covering the basic laws that all countries should have, but often don't.Quote: RECALLING United Nations resolution #26, (The Universal Bill of Rights) wherein all UN citizens are given rights to safety and peace,
BELIEVING that all people everywhere deserve freedom from physical and mental harm wrought upon them by other human beings,
RECOGNISING the need for a universal legal system to ensure that all people may be protected wherever they go within the UN,

THESE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY DECLARE:

DEFINING ?harm? as any injury or infection of a person, except where used as medical treatment,
DEFINING ?damage? as any alteration to an object that leaves it less able to carry out its function, lessened in value, graffitied, or with some other alteration undesirable to its owner,

1. [1] No human being may, by deliberate action, bring, or attempt to bring any human being to harm, [2] nor by deliberate inaction allow the same.
2. No human being may, by deliberate action, cause, or attempt to cause, damage to any property that they do not own, without the full, explicit, informed, uncoerced consent of the owner of said property.
3a. Under section 1, clause 2, those forced to cause harm in order to protect themselves or others are hereby exempted form section 1, clause 1 and section 2, provided that:
  [1] the harm or damage they cause is outweighed by the harm they prevent
  [2] the harm or damage they cause is the absolute minimum necessary
  [3] they cause harm or damage only where absolutely necessary
3b. In cases where an individual disregards a minority in order to protect a majority, no criminal charges may be brought with regards to harm caused to members of said minority.
[/quote]It has been rewritten several times, but it still needs work. I'm also working on a fourth section making it illegal to force people to do something against their will, but it's quite complicated because you need all sorts of exemptions for law enforcement - people don't want to go to prison, but the police are allowed to make them, etc. so if anyone has any ideas for that part I'd be grateful.
Thanks.

[Nosedondekistan]

As I said on Futaba Aoi, my main advice now is to scratch 3b altogether.

[Groot Gouda]

I agree that 3b isn't strictly necessary in this resolution.

Because quite a few nations are not inhabited by human beings, perhaps the term "person" is better.

When exempting, perhaps the term "reasonable" can be usefull. In the fourth section you can put something like:

4. No person may be held or forced to do something against their will, except in cases where it is reasonable to do so, preventing harm or damage to the general public or property.

[random_factor]

Groot GoudaAug 4 2005, 12:04 PM I agree that 3b isn't strictly necessary in this resolution.

Because quite a few nations are not inhabited by human beings, perhaps the term "person" is better.

When exempting, perhaps the term "reasonable" can be usefull. In the fourth section you can put something like:

4. No person may be held or forced to do something against their will, except in cases where it is reasonable to do so, preventing harm or damage to the general public or property. [/quote]
Thanks, that's really helped. I'll give section 4 a shot, but I may just submit this proposal without it. Of course, the one thing we must be careful about is making sure that section 4 cannot be used for coercion - if you held a gun to someone's head and then told someone else to do something, then under this resolution they'd have to do it because their doing so would prevent harm to others. I'll try to re-word it, but as I said, I may just leave section 4 out.

[random_factor]

This proposal now has a thread in the NSUN forum. Click here to see it.

[Adam Island]

DEFINING ?harm? as any injury or infection of a person, except where used as medical treatment,

1. [2] nor remain inactive with the intention of allowing a person to come to harm.

The exceptions in 3 seem like they might exempt me from requiring my citizens to forcibly stop their friends from over-eating. But would it ban assisted-suicide? Would it stop a citizen from shooting an intruder?

[Grosseschnauzer]

Quote: 3b. In cases where an individual disregards a minority in order to protect a majority, no criminal charges may be brought with regards to harm caused to members of said minority.[/quote]

This is a very dangerous provision. It could be used to justify persecution or oppression of a minority, or other violate the protected rights of a minority. I'm not sure what the author intends by this provision, but this provision alone would justify opposition to the proposal.

[random_factor]

After several revisions, the proposal now looks like this:
Quote: RECALLING United Nations resolution #26, (The Universal Bill of Rights) wherein all UN citizens are given rights to safety and peace,
BELIEVING that all people everywhere deserve freedom from physical and mental harm wrought upon them by other human beings,
RECOGNISING the need for a universal legal system to ensure that all people may be protected wherever they go within the UN,

THESE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY DECLARE:

DEFINING ?harm? as any injury or infection of a person, except where used as medical treatment,
DEFINING ?damage? as any alteration to an object that leaves it less able to carry out its function, lessened in value (be it monetary, sentimental or aesthetic), or with some other alteration undesirable to its owner,

1. [1] No person may carry out an action with the intention of harming another person, [2] nor remain inactive with the intention of allowing a person to come to harm.
2. No person may carry out an action with the intention of damaging any property that they do not own, without the full, explicit, informed, uncoerced consent of the owner of said property.
3a. Under section 1, clause 2, those forced to cause harm in order to protect themselves or others are hereby exempted form section 1, clause 1 and section 2, provided that:
  [1] the harm or damage they cause is outweighed by the harm they prevent
  [2] the harm or damage they cause is the absolute minimum necessary
  [3] they cause harm or damage only where absolutely necessary
[/quote]
I think I've gotten rid of most of the loopholes. At least, no-one's pointed out any new ones.
People kept saying to get rid of section 3b, and I've just seen why, so 3b has been dropped.

[Adam Island]

DEFINING ?harm? as any injury or infection of a person, except where used as medical treatment,

Hmmmm.... how do we define "injury?" Does this include emotional injury? And the resolution still doesn't make an exception for consensual injury outside of medical treatment. Would 'medical treatment' cover assisted suicide or voluntary castration? What about the sport of boxing, where the whole point is to injure your opponent?



[2] nor remain inactive with the intention of allowing a person to come to harm.

Currently I'm sitting on my butt while people overseas are getting slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands and hundreds of millions are getting diseased. I could stop at least some of that right now by walking to the Salvation Army and volunteering or looking for grifters to give spare change to. Does this count as intention?


3a. Under section 1, clause 2, those forced to cause harm in order to protect themselves or others are hereby exempted form section 1, clause 1 and section 2, provided that:
[1] the harm or damage they cause is outweighed by the harm they prevent
[2] the harm or damage they cause is the absolute minimum necessary
[3] they cause harm or damage only where absolutely necessary

It seems like this section relies on the results of the action of self-defense rather than the intent. What if I shoot an intruder who turned out to have a fake gun?


Don't take this as criticism of the idea, I like it. These are just issues with your proposal that will be pointed out on the NS forums, if they haven't already. The Adam Island Supreme Court interpets international laws very liberally, so these small issues are smoothed over however we like