Here is the current UN resolution up for voting. Please read it over, add anything you have to say about it to this thread, then vote. The voting continues at the UN until March 26th.

As per constitutional requirements, I will vote in accordance to the majority view as expressed in this poll.

Here is the text of the resoluton:

"FREEDOM OF CHOICE"

Description: Aware that sometimes, all choices we face are an illusion, but nonetheless strongly believing that as humans, we are entitled to make them ourselves,

Reiterating that freedom of choice is a defining element of our very humanity and the inalienable right of all humanity,

Alarmed that there are those among us who seek to limit our ability to choose, including but not limited to political, educational and consumer choice,

Further alarmed that individuals can be influenced and their ability to decide limited through cultural conditioning,

Deeply disturbed that the practice of subliminal advertising appears to erode the fundamental human trait of free will,

Noting with concern that in the wider world, the populations of entire nations repeat non sequitors issued by the State and remain in profound ignorance of the world around them,

Recalling the Resolution "Universal Bill of Rights" and Articles 1, 2 and 3 in particular,

Approving of past Resolutions restricting personal freedoms in the interests of moral decency,

Stressing that humanity has an innate curiosity about the world, and welcoming all efforts to permit this curiosity to reach its full potential,

1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society;

2) Strongly encourages leaders to imagine how different the world could be, if from an early age, people were free to exercise genuine choice in what they read, watched and learnt;

3) Recognises that the most basic human characteristic is that of curiosity - the ability to wonder, ask questions, and seek answers, and affirms its belief that no State should limit its people's freedom to do this;

4) Expresses its conviction that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make, provided these decisions meet the condition set in Clause 5a of this document;

5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies,

B) The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State,

c) The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services, and does not mandate the creation of private health and education sectors in nations where provision of public services is a State monopoly, while the right of the State to later deregulate nationalised services, or choose not to do so, remains unaffected;

6) Declares a moratorium on the use of subliminal advertising pending independent internationally-coordinated research into its effects on the capacity of individuals and wider society to make rational decisions.

I strongly oppose this resolution. My reasoning is rooted in section 5©, which states:


c) The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services, and does not mandate the creation of private health and education sectors in nations where provision of public services is a State monopoly, while the right of the State to later deregulate nationalised services, or choose not to do so, remains unaffected;

This means that if you have a private health care system, and wish to change to a public one, you will not be able to do so after this resolution is passed. Similarly if you have private auto insurance, and want to create a universal public system, this resolution will make that impossible.

As such, this resolution, in my view, must be voted down.

I can see what they were TRYING to do with this resolution. After all, freedom of choice is a pretty important basic right. But I have to agree with Bweezy - with this wording we'd be leaving ourselves open to some pretty dangerous precidents. They've cast their net a little loosly. Is there a way to propose amendments or changes to a proposal? Because I like it's spirit, just not it's wording... With a little editing maybe... I mean, I hate to be one of the guys VOTING DOWN a proposal about freedom of choice! Especially when I head up a country of hippies!

There is no way to amend the resolution at this stage. What you could do is copy the resolution, make changes to it, and then resubmit it at the UN as a proposal. If you are interested in doing that, I'd suggest you give a shot at rewording the resolution to your liking, and then post your proposed wording in a thread in the UN forum on this site. We can look it over as a group, see if it requires shoring up, and then once finalized, you could propose it to the UN (unless you are not a UN nation, in which case someone else could do it).

If proposed, I'd use my delegate vote to endorse the proposal (unless, of course, this happens after March 28th, in which case my successor would have to be the one to do it)

This is a well-meaning resolution to the UN, but it basically tries to enforce something that we all have (free will), and then backs away from that when confronted with the consequences.

Of course we all have a right to choose to do anything. But every choice has a consequence. Laws are a way for a nation to define some consequences to discourage some behaviours. But if you've watched any news programs, you realize that everyone can (and does) do as they please.

A UN Proposal that states that we all have the freedom to do as we please with no consequences is trying to fight against the way the universe works - I jump off of a building, I land hard on the ground. I can't fly because I choose to believe I can.

UN resolutions should deal with individual issues and sets of consequences. They should either (a) impose consequences on those who perform some actions (or inactions) or (B) remove unjust consequences from those who are unjustly being rewarded or punished. This needs to be debated on a case-by-case basis. This kind of blanket resolution sets a precedent that will be very hard to work with in the future.

I go so far as to say that if it passes, I will seriously rethink my membership in the UN.

Saskatonia out.

Well put, Sask! B)

Okay. I actually have something to submit regarding this one other than the usual "I disagree", or "I agree" replies. In my opinion, it is inherently Sociological and that is the position from which my arguments will stem. This is going to be more of an ideological discourse about the proposal, but as the submitter has obviously designed it to be so, I feel it only proper to discuss it at the level from which it is written. They appear to me to either be a Sociology or Philosophy student who has a basic understandings of the term 'free will' even if not implicit. There are, as already pointed out contradictions of both the will and nature (to take Kant's approach) and although it attempts to be categorical, it is far from this on a number of levels.

Fine. So be it. By the proposals own admission, a person (assuming that they are of sound mind) has consciously made this decision to limit their ability to choose. The option that person X would like to take has not been proffered and abstinence has been chosen rather than engaging in either moral, emotional, or philosophical dilemma. That's the individuals choice and according to this proposal, that right cannot be taken away from them as:

I also disagree with the statement that "subliminal advertising appears to erode the fundamental human trait of free will". Subliminal advertising may influence a decision, it does not take away the ability to ignore that decision based on a better alternative depending on which rationale is begin used. For example, philosophical, spiritual, ideological etc. A decision, or the process of arriving at a decision is never a straight forward anatomical response. It requires both experience from previous decisions and current stimuli if naming only two.

This will only accomplish one thing: Socio-political apathy in the lower working classes. I do not want to enter a theoretical argument about the merits of a classless society, as this is difficult at the best of times. It is, however, beyond reasonable doubt, that a social hierarchy is in place. For this purpose, I shall refer to this as 'class'.
The direct consequence of this will leave a given country or region to those who desire power and influence. To put it another way, those who wish to be ontologically secure. If this ontology is challenged, Society will degrade into a class war. This, in many political ideals is referred to as anarchy.

Again, there is no base-line to govern what each individual should be able to learn. If an individual, parent, teacher, or whomever adopted this attitude, argument is that it would only serve to further the class divide. I draw attention to one Paulo Freire and his book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", where he offers the same argument:

"Resolution of the oppressor-oppressed contradiction indeed implies the disappearance of the oppressors as a dominant class"
Freire P., 1970, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin Books

In order to accomplish this, a certain amount of 'free-will' requires to be limited to enable critical thinking enlightenment. This occurring, rejects de-humanisation as a social construct and removes class as an inhibiting factor.
That said, this is not an easy task to undertake, and one which many have dedicated their life’s work to.

This, again is only part true. Humans are still animals and the driving force is the reproduction of the gene-seed. Curiosity, is a by-product of a much more base-instinct.

Cultural conditioning is part of the human survival trait. Decisions that are made are done so because of an inherent reaction to defend the body. Cultural conditioning is not an easy force to redress. Could you imagine a world with one culture? A world where every human-animal is leading their lives to the same rules? This destroys the very nature of what it is to be human. The diversity, the subtle yet insurmountable differences in the way each individual thinks. It would be a world of drones, coagulating around one goal. I will concede that this merits curiosity: a fundamental desire to learn, to understand. To remove this would make humans no more than a hive-species rather than a pack-species.

Yes. I strongly disagree with this on a number of levels. It requires much more thought than just banging out your latest Philosophy essay and turning it into a UN resolution. I say for shame for putting across some very confused interpretations of ground breaking sociological theorems and attempting to generalise a concept of humanity that truly underpins what it is to be 'human'.

Bah. :angry:

I think we can kick and scream all we want, but methinks it shall be passed nonetheless. :(

It looks that way. Unless the really big regions vote against it at the last minute, it looks like it will be adopted.

Welcome to Canada - we often vote against the grain.

Unfortunately, I will be voting no on this.

I would have voted yes on the intent of this resolution, but I must vote no on the content of it.

Hopefully I won't be three days late on the next resolution debate. Most of my problems with this document have already been addressed.

The resolution "Universal Freedom of Choice" was passed, 9314 votes to 8213, and implemented in all UN member nations. I voted our 75 delegate votes against the resolution, based on the off-site poll which indicated that Canada was opposed to it by a 12-5 margin.