Good Samaritan Laws

[workerscommunes]

What's everyone's opinion on the UN resolution currently at vote?

I'm against it now as it promises to restrict civil freedoms.

[theyellowspot]

the first two parts seem OK, but i'm a bit wary of the 3rd and 4th parts. I associate "good samaritan" laws with the wacky stuff that forces you to help people. but these seem to just limit liablility for some volunteer if he/she fucks up and hurts someone while trying to help. anyone else have ideas of the deeper implications of this resolution?

[Walter and Theodor]

We are for this peice of legislation. It is essentially positive and a reasonable attempt to curb some of the excesses of litigation culture. In W&T we believe civil lawsuits are one of the few forms of justice left to citizens in capitalists countries and we wholly support the greedy and misguided attempts to stick it to the man by suing capitalists for massive sums whenever they do even the slightest thing wrong. However, an unfortunate side effect of this has been the use of lawsuits to get at people who were trying to help in the name of community responsibility. While largely a "tabloid" issue we can't see any drawbacks in the wording of this legislation.

We don't see anything in the legislation that forces people to help. Quite the opposite.

Sincerely,
Theodor of the Benovolent Non-Binding Council.

[workerscommunes]

But all it would do on a practical level would be to decrease our nations' civil rights. I can't really see us benefitting from the passing of this resolution.

[claptonpond]

If the only civil right it restricts is the right to sue someone for accidentally harming you when they're trying to help you, then I'm in favour.

Clapton Pond's civil rights are 'excessive' anyway, so I don't mind taking a wee hit.

[Watfordshire]

Watfordshire votes 'Aye'

[FreeLandofAIM]

Clapton said:

If the only civil right it restricts is the right to sue someone for accidentally harming you when they're trying to help you, then I'm in favour.

But surely that is the downwards slope into more civil rights being lost because of inconveniances contained within those civil rights that one may not agree with?

I'm with WC on this one.

[claptonpond]

Depends whether you agree with the bourgeois liberal concept of 'rights', I guess. But assuming we do (because NS forces us to)...

Some right-libertarians would argue for the 'right' to own slaves. I'd argue that the right not to be enslaved is more important.

There's always a trade-off between different rights. In this instance, between the right to sue someone for accidentally hurting you, and the right to not be sued for accidentally hurting someone you're trying to help. I think the latter takes precedence.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

As far as the regional vote is concerned, S&V is going to abstain on this one.

[workerscommunes]

The resolution itself isn't a bad one in theory, but I still oppose it as all our civil rights would take an unneccessary hit.

I might have to abstain on this one too as opinion seems to be divided.

[Walter and Theodor]

Workers Communes sweety darling...I think you are fetishizing your rating, are you not?

[workerscommunes]

Walter said:

Workers Communes sweety darling...I think you are fetishizing your rating, are you not?

W&T cherry blossom...I suppose it depends on how seriously you're taking NS. This is just a role play game after all and therefore I personally see no point voting for legislation which will take our nations somewhere we don't want to go (i.e. into 'Liberal Democratic Socialists' territory), even if I agreed with the bulk of the act. There's just no point...who's going to benefit?

When these 'moral decency' acts are passed all they do is restrict our civil freedoms. The wording of the resolutions is pretty meaningless (practically speaking, they are great for debate and discussion), it's the catagory and the strength which really matter and this resolution happens to be in a catagory I dislike. If there was a resolution called 'The Free Ice Cream and Teddy Bears for Orphans Act' which in truth actually promised to significantly boost police and military budgets, would you still vote for it because you liked the act in principle?

If this sounds like I'm 'fetishising my rating' I apologise but we have to make a distinction between whether or not we agree with the act in spirit and whether or not the act would actually benefit our nations (in terms of civil rights, political freedoms, economy etc.) if it were passed.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

Personally, I don't see why orphans should have all the ice cream and teddy bears. I mean, it's their parents wot died and they get nuffink.

[claptonpond]

WC, I think you need to take a more nuanced approach than just looking at overall effects on ratings. As I pointed out above, the only 'civil right' actually affected by the proposal is the right to sue a foreign aid worker for accidentally hurting you. Do you really think people should have that particular 'right'?

[workerscommunes]

Clapton said:

WC, I think you need to take a more nuanced approach than just looking at overall effects on ratings. As I pointed out above, the only 'civil right' actually affected by the proposal is the right to sue a foreign aid worker for accidentally hurting you. Do you really think people should have that particular 'right'?

No I don't think that's a 'right' but does the game actually differentiate between this 'suppression of civil rights' and any other e.g. a ban on recreational drugs? I may be wrong but I'm presuming all these moral decency acts have pretty much the same effect (i.e. making one's nation more authoritarian) regardless of the description the author gives.