The Ministerial Ethics Law

*Cracks Knuckles*

Alrighty then, I may aswell share my own opinion on this.

Now I am a person who does want transparency in the Government. Though, we already have laws for that. I may aswell bring them to the table since they're relevant.
Legal Code of The North Pacific Chapter 7 Section 7.5:
Freedom of Information Act
31. For the purposes of this section "the government" refers to the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee.
32. For the purposes of this section, classified information is that which fits any of the below definitions:
Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
33. Notwithstanding any process for publication, any information which meets the criteria to be classified will not be released.
34. Private government records which reach one year of age will be relocated to the appropriate Declassified Archive visible to residents.
35. At any time a resident may request the release of any private record from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
36. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government.
37. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information to the court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable acceptable criteria for classification.
38. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.

The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific Section 8:
Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

I don't think we necessarily need an Office of Ethics. You brought up the point of the United States Office of Government Ethics. Now, let me address this for you.

On February 1, 1977, United States Senator from Connecticut Abraham Alexander Ribicoff introduced the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Originally Ethics in Government Act of 1977). The reasoning of its introduction of due to the recent Watergate Break-in and Scandal.

Another thing to note is that the Office was supervised and managed by the Department of Justice. Which is the equivalent (or at least more likely equivalence of the Department of Justice) to the Office of Attorney General. I would rather have the Attorney General appoint its head and supervise it than the Delegate in terms of this region. And even then, we don't exactly need it. We already have procedure and laws for that and the Attorney General is an independent position for this reason. And anyways, we haven't had our Watergate yet nor will it likely ever happen. If it were to happen. Perhaps we could consider this again but if we're going to consider this, it should be an organization or bureau under the Attorney General than its own Ministry.

And your statement about Mcm and R3n. They have their own opinions. Period. Let me state a famous quote:
The Friends of Voltaire: Helvetius: The Contradiction 199:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.*
Now am I saying you're in Legal trouble or I'm going to send you to Court. Absolutely not. That obviously would be me violating that quote. :P

And anyways, the point of why I quoted that part of the book is because while you may disagree with them, their opinions and points should not be silenced or attempted to remove their right to say it. I disagree with Mcm on well... A lot of things. But that doesn't mean I go ahead and try to silence Mcm. I don't even have the power to nor would I if I had the power to. Everyone's opinions in this region and everywhere else matters and we shall fight to the death to defend that right.

Probably my last point for my complete and full, long argument is that this is unnecessary bureaucracy. I know this sounds strange to attack my own resolution for the Regional Assembly but let's reflect on my proposed Delegate and Vice Delegate Article Amendment. We have laws for Freedom of Information so it's unnecessary to go ahead and interrogate the target. Your target in your propose in my understand would be anyone in the Executive while mine... The same. Of course these two resolutions are not the same. My point like I said above is that it's unnecessary bureaucracy and we already have laws and procedures for these types of situations.

So, what's my stance on this resolution. Absolute Nay. Sorry for seeming a little harsh but this is my opinion and my opinion only. This is how I feel about your resolution and I will fight to the death to protect my opinion. I will also fight to the death to protect your opinions however we do not share the same on this area of transparency.
 
I am currently in deliberations regarding the spirit of this proposal and so my defense and furthering of it shall be put on hold until I find there is no other resolution besides RA action.
 
I am currently in deliberations regarding the spirit of this proposal and so my defense and furthering of it shall be put on hold until I find there is no other resolution besides RA action.
I suggest continuing your other proposal than this one. Just saying.
 
I do not like this proposal at all. It creates a too nebulous bar to cross in terms of 'ethics'.

"Ethics" is a tricky term:

The Ethical man knows that it is wrong to cheat on his wife. The Moral man does not cheat on his wife.
 
I do not like this proposal at all. It creates a too nebulous bar to cross in terms of 'ethics'.

"Ethics" is a tricky term:

The Ethical man knows that it is wrong to cheat on his wife. The Moral man does not cheat on his wife.
There is a difference between morality and ethics, yes. However, within the professional atmosphere of governance the ethical science cannot be privy to teleological conversation as the origin and cause of morality is not something that is addressed politically. Ethics is concerned with right action, period. Therefore, it is the correct term.
 
If a Delegate wants to create a Ministry of Ethics, that would be fine. They can have a Ministry for Silly Walks if they like. It is the Delegate's prerogative. But experience has shown there are certain ministries the region must have to function properly. Those are the ones the RA has stipulated the Delegate is required to maintain. It would be rather odd for the RA to impose something on the Delegate which is not really essential. If we are going to make any other ministries mandatory, it should be Culture. After all, it is and has always been the most important ministry.
 
If a Delegate wants to create a Ministry of Ethics, that would be fine. They can have a Ministry for Silly Walks if they like. It is the Delegate's prerogative. But experience has shown there are certain ministries the region must have to function properly. Those are the ones the RA has stipulated the Delegate is required to maintain. It would be rather odd for the RA to impose something on the Delegate which is not really essential. If we are going to make any other ministries mandatory, it should be Culture. After all, it is and has always been the most important ministry.

I agree. Especially the part about culture being the most important.

We should also keep in mind that mandatory ministries were brought in because we had Delegates who didn’t appoint anyone to their cabinet and made all decisions themselves. Or rather, did mostly nothing.

Our cabinet style government has grown gradually over the years. It can suitably adapt and change if the Delegate feels this is necessary.
 
I feel that there is not a need for a Ministry of Ethics, nor is there a culture of corruption, unethical actions or maleficences in the government. Even if there were actions that were to be considered "unethical" or worthy of action from such a ministry, the Regional Assembly should be the one to hold the government and officials accountable for such action. If we are looking at oversite of the executive then give the Speaker access to the Cabinet as it has previously been done. Is that necessary, no but if it relieves concerns about "ethical" behaviour of government officials then do it.
 
the Regional Assembly should be the one to hold the government and officials accountable for such action.
Hence my previous call for @Wonderess to divulge these "whispers" he keeps talking about, if they're even real at all or just a rhetorical tactic to attempt to justify this proposal.
 
The RA, after all, is supposed to deal with corruption via recalls and other methods
 
It seems to me that appeals to “whispers” or “some people say” without showing proof such appeals are out there is itself a form of corruption. It could be said to be misleading at best, manipulative at worst. I don’t believe the author is lying or trying to deceive but may be guilty of presuming a more widespread sentiment than actually exists. I don’t think the RA would take such assumptions at face value, but if it did it could risk being ruled not by a minority, but an imaginary caucus. That doesn’t strike me as being consistent with transparent government or motivation.
 
Hence my previous call for @Wonderess to divulge these "whispers" he keeps talking about, if they're even real at all or just a rhetorical tactic to attempt to justify this proposal.
My image of the situation is incomplete. As I said this legislation is not based on any particular corruption but more a mater of principle and the elevation of the ethical pursuit for the positives that can come from its formal presence in government. There seems to be a mindset of "there must be some empirical cause or effect for something to be valuable to government" which I push against because CONTEMPLATION IS VALUABLE IN ITSELF AND DESERVES A PLACE.
 
The whispers are not the cause of this legislation, also I do have a full enough picture to provide and it is my judgement that my public statement would do more harm than good to the region. If I feel my image of the situation is more complete or capable of being of aid then I will publicly state so.
 
My image of the situation is incomplete. As I said this legislation is not based on any particular corruption but more a mater of principle and the elevation of the ethical pursuit for the positives that can come from its formal presence in government. There seems to be a mindset of "there must be some empirical cause or effect for something to be valuable to government" which I push against because CONTEMPLATION IS VALUABLE IN ITSELF AND DESERVES A PLACE.
There is no such mindset, as has been made clear to you multiple times already. There are plenty of demerits to this proposal already that make it impractical at best. But if you are going to bring up "whispers" in your argument, we are going to ask you to come clear with them, regardless of this proposal.

And don't shout at me. The halls of the RA are very echo-y already.
 
Consider it a means of emphasis rather than shouting.
For one who leads a party dedicated to the pursuit of civil discourse, you may wish to consider following your own ideals for discourse, especially in the halls of the RA.
 
There is no such mindset, as has been made clear to you multiple times already. There are plenty of demerits to this proposal already that make it impractical at best. But if you are going to bring up "whispers" in your argument, we are going to ask you to come clear with them, regardless of this proposal.

And don't shout at me. The halls of the RA are very echo-y already.

Yes and no about a category of people referred to as 'whisperers' in any situate. In order for 'whispering' to be useful as a tool, anyone who here's 'whispers' is best to not let anyone other than the 'whisperers' know that they were heard. But I'm just being silly and rhetorical.
 
I do not believe that there is overt corruption in the government. I do think that there is perhaps inefficiency and a general disunity among the ministries that could be aided by some sort of ethical framework or musing.
 
If discourse in the RA has gotten so bad that we truly, actively need a legal framework based on philosophical ethics, then this region is fucked. Thankfully it has not come to that and we all still recognize that each of us is a human being. I'm sorry to inform you that debate tends to get a little shouty.

Furthermore, as far as I've seen, the government is more efficient than ever, and there are no serious internal conflicts within the ministries. Where are your sources?
 
If discourse in the RA has gotten so bad that we truly, actively need a legal framework based on philosophical ethics, then this region is fucked. Thankfully it has not come to that and we all still recognize that each of us is a human being. I'm sorry to inform you that debate tends to get a little shouty.

Furthermore, as far as I've seen, the government is more efficient than ever, and there are no serious internal conflicts within the ministries. Where are your sources?
I have decided to personal publish an philo-ethical treatise on the matter. Perhaps then there can be some understanding of what I am getting at.
 
It's been a while @Wonderess, but if you'd like to pick this up again I'll leave it open, if not, I'm leaning towards archiving it. Let me know.
 
Back
Top