[GA - Passed] Minimum Standard of Living Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Minimum Standard of Living Act
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: New Kowloon Bay | Onsite Topic​

Believing that a minimum standard of living should be granted to all individuals,

The General Assembly:

1. Defines the “minimum standard of living”, for the purposes of this resolution, as the necessary amount of food and nutrition and adequate access to hygiene, housing, transport, and appropriate utilities and conditions of care which a person needs to live with health and dignity.

2. Asserts that all member states of this Assembly must provide this minimum standard of living to those living within their territory.

3. Encourages member states to promote this guarantee via providing incentives, financial or otherwise, to companies which assist in this guarantee.

4. In the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard of living, authorizes the World Assembly Compliance Commission and the Independent Adjudicative Office to determine the culpability of the member nation.

4.1. In the case where a government is unable to provide the minimum standard of living, but is not found to be culpable, the WA Development Foundation may, on that government's request, work with that government to improve infrastructure in order to provide the minimum standard of living as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
7101
 
Last edited:
Overview
This proposal seeks to establish a "minimum standard of living," which is defined as the amount of food, nutrition, hygiene, housing, transport, and other utilities and conditions needed for one to live with "healthy and dignity." The proposal dictates that all member states must provide this minimum standard of living to all residents within said member state. Member states are encouraged to give incentives to companies for assistance with guaranteeing this "minimum standard of living." The proposal also directs the World Assembly Compliance Commission and Independent Adjudicative Office to determine whether a member nation unable to provide this standard of living is culpable. If the nation is found unculpable, it allows the WA Development Foundation to work with the government to provide that standard of living, with the government's request.

Recommendation
This proposal's establishment of a minimum standard of living helps to ensure that all residents of member states are guaranteed services, utilities, and other forms of care to allow them to function healthily. Through the WA Development Foundation helping governments who may not be able to provide this standard, the proposal also makes sure that more economically and infrastructure-wise disadvantaged member states will still be able to provide this standard of living.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly resolution at vote, "Minimum Standard Of Living Act".
 
Last edited:
For. This proposal ensures that every person, regardless of their location or the level of government support, can obtain the fundamental necessities required for a life of wellness and respectability.
 
For. §4.1 is an especially good addition to the proposal, in helping nations with poor infrastructure to still be able to guarantee their residents basic necessities.
 
Last edited:
Present. I like it, but there are just two small problems. One, a "necessary amount of food and nutrition". How much is "necessary".
Two, an "adequate...". How much is adequate.
Apart from those two, the proposal is good.
 
Nutmeg The Squirrel:
Present. I like it, but there are just two small problems. One, a "necessary amount of food and nutrition". How much is "necessary".
Two, an "adequate...". How much is adequate.
Apart from those two, the proposal is good.
Click to expand...
I would consider "necessary" and "adequate" to mean enough to keep an individual in the condition of "liv[ing] with health and dignity", per the end of §1.
 
Meadow:
I would consider "necessary" and "adequate" to mean enough to keep an individual in the condition of "liv[ing] with health and dignity", per the end of §1.
Click to expand...
I would agree, but the terms are just too open-ended for me. It's like if you say you will pay everyone a fair wage. What counts as "fair"?
I'm going to stick with present, but I agree with the proposal.
 
Against. Opposed because of its overly generous requirements in terms of welfare but I concede it's more likely than not to pass.
 
Magecastle:
How is helping people not die a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Clause 1 is far beyond "helping people not die". I will not engage in debate because I believe it's well known that I take a political position that is broadly libertarian and against government welfare.
 
Last edited:
Simone_Republic:
Clause 1 is far beyond "helping people not die". I will not engage in debate because I believe it's well known that I take a political position that is broadly libertarian and against government welfare.
Click to expand...
Having access to inter alia hygiene and housing so that people can "live with health and dignity" is absolutely helping people not die; although I also fail to see how it's a problem for individuals to have health and dignity.
 
Magecastle:
Having access to inter alia hygiene and housing so that people can "live with health and dignity" is absolutely helping people not die; although I also fail to see how it's a problem for individuals to have health and dignity.
Click to expand...
Again, as mentioned within MoWAA, I will not engage in this debate.
 
Last edited:
I do wish that this proposal were more specific. The issue is not necessarily in terms of individual words, since definitions of those are common-sense, but more surrounding the way effect of the clauses. What does it mean that a minimum standard of living must be provided? Does that imply a certain level of governmental oversight or management of the provision of this standard, or would mere auditing to ensure that it provided sufficient? This feels as though it is a good framework, but lacking in detail.

However, the lack of detail does not make the proposal actively harmful, nor does it result in a potential for absurdity. If I were being nitpicking, I might say that this deserves a lower strength than strong, with even significant feeling too impactful, simply because of the vagueness in “minimum standard of living”. However, there is no genuine flaw catastrophic to the proposal.

Therefore, I am for this proposal.
 
For. This resolution improves the general welfare of those unprivileged, and gives them the chance to succeed in life once again. Remember the movie "Pursuit of Happyness" ?.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top