Sophia recommends a vote FOR Minimum Standard of Living Act

General Assembly: Minimum Standard of Living Act (Social Justice; Strong), by New Kowloon Bay

Recommendation: FOR

Rationale: Another day, another Minimum Standard of Living Act. But why? GA#21, the comparatively originally-titled Living Wage Act, was transformatory - it required that everyone working more than thirty hours a week be paid enough for good food, basic utilities, an average house and a reasonable commute with a 25% margin on top to spare. The goal was that nobody live in poverty, especially not given the exhortation for state welfare systems to be equally generous. It was struck out by Celsuis (in GA#341) seven years later for being both insensitive of what nations actually needed and failing to cover those most in need.

Behold - GA#344, Auralia's 2015 original under that title. That merely required that member states somehow afford all of their inhabitants (with certain exceptions for non-citizens, prisoners, benefits claimants and states of emergency, none of which the World Assembly could override by resolution) "minimum levels of access to food and water, clothing, housing, sanitation, appropriate utilities, and appropriate transportation."

GA#21 failed to cover prisoners and was struck out in part for that reason. This one did, too, but not a serious word was raised about it. Try as some poor souls may, it stayed on the books for seven more long years, too, until Heidgaudr (through GA#629) raised a rightful hue and cry about how it was arbitrarily exclusionary, inadvertently promotive of state-run monopoly industries, abusive of crucial terms it saw the need to leave undefined altogether, and even neglectful of how member states could harm their economies themselves and then claim they could not deliver the minimum standard.

At first sight, this new Minimum Standard of Living Act - New Kowloon Bay's debut resolution - looks interesting enough to merit serious consideration. It defines the minimum standard of living itself in a similar fashion to Auralia, requires members to afford all of their inhabitants this standard without exceptions, and encourages public-private partnerships to this effect.

What we must do is measure these proposals against the yardsticks laid out by Heidgaudr. It is universal in scope, unlike either of its predecessors, which is a positive mark in its column - and it is straightforwardly written, too. Nor does it even attempt to prescribe how member states may fulfil their obligations, instead only offering a sensible recommendation to involve the private sector.

This alone would make for a good resolution, but the icing on the top is Articles 4 and 4.1. Article 4 allows the WA to investigate to what extent member states that cannot deliver the minimum standard are responsible for not being able to do so. Where they were not responsible, Article 4.1 permits it to work with them "to improve infrastructure in order to provide the minimum standard of living as soon as possible."

There is a concern that Article 4.1 offers a simple non-culpability standard: if the government is found to be partially culpable, it is not clear whether the WA would be able to offer the assistance described, forcing member states to go it alone or seek help from potentially hostile (or sanctioning) allies. It could prove to be a sticking point in future repeal debates - but is there a case for it at this juncture, when the rest of the resolution is well-written and - unlike its forebear - allows for meaningful resolutions on specific aspects of economic and social rights? We think it is not; we hope, in any event, that we will not have to relitigate this issue wholesale in the long, hot and glorious summer of 2030.

~~~~~~~~~~

This recommendation was written by Tinhampton, the President of Sophia.

This resolution will be at vote between the major updates of May 28th 2023 and June 1st 2023.