The Ideological Ban Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Proposals cannot outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. e.g. A proposal can mandate that elections are transparent and fair. In this way no ideology has been outlawed as this would affect nations that have elections while not forcing it on nations without an election system. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

[Frisbeeteria]

Bump for discussion.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Here are two previous discussions on this rule:
Rethinking the Ruleset
Why Is Free Trade Legal?

[Christian Democrats]

This is a really dumb rule, and it relies on the same assumption as a number of other rules that should go: WA voters are too stupid to know what is and isn't right to legislate, so the moderators need to intervene. If the GA wants to pass a resolution banning Scientology (assuming this wouldn't be counted as a real-world reference of course), so be it. I wouldn't vote for it.

[Kryozerkia]

This is a really dumb rule, and it relies on the same assumption as a number of other rules that should go: WA voters are too stupid to know what is and isn't right to legislate, so the moderators need to intervene. If the GA wants to pass a resolution banning Scientology (assuming this wouldn't be counted as a real-world reference of course), so be it. I wouldn't vote for it.

So, do you feel the same knowing that it could do the same to theocratic ideologies? That it could force the separate of church and state, effectively forcing a secular ideology on formerly religious governments?

[Christian Democrats]

This is a really dumb rule, and it relies on the same assumption as a number of other rules that should go: WA voters are too stupid to know what is and isn't right to legislate, so the moderators need to intervene. If the GA wants to pass a resolution banning Scientology (assuming this wouldn't be counted as a real-world reference of course), so be it. I wouldn't vote for it.

So, do you feel the same knowing that it could do the same to theocratic ideologies? That it could force the separate of church and state, effectively forcing a secular ideology on formerly religious governments?

That's a political argument to be had. Per Metagaming/Game Mechanics, I could keep my nation's settings however I want.

[Ainocra]

I'm going to have to say keep it.

If it were removed the WA could mandate things like

your type of government, outlaw your religion, enforce a certain religion on you etc.

Despite what CD might say I find this rule to be a very good bulwark against the tyranny of majority.

That argument aside it also makes the quality of proposals go up. If you can't outright ban the ideology you dislike you can find sneaky ways to legislate against it and make it more difficult to operate one. Which my default requires alot more thought, and alot better quality.


How many times have we collectively shot down attempts to ban dictatorships, or monarchies, or theocracies, or communism, or kennyism, or any number of religions?

Removing this would lead to a homogenization of member governments in the long run.

Besides we need at least one ebil dictator in the chamber to keep things fun.

[Christian Democrats]

Removing this would lead to a homogenization of member governments in the long run.

The World Assembly leads to a homogenization of member governments in the long run.

[Knootoss]

Let's remove this rule so we can finally ban the scourge of communism.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm going to have to say keep it.

If it were removed the WA could mandate things like

your type of government, outlaw your religion, enforce a certain religion on you etc.

Wouldn't those fall under the customisable field aspect of the Game Mechanics rule?

That argument aside it also makes the quality of proposals go up. If you can't outright ban the ideology you dislike you can find sneaky ways to legislate against it and make it more difficult to operate one. Which my default requires alot more thought, and alot better quality.

I for one strongly support the WA promoting alot better quality.

How many times have we collectively shot down attempts to ban dictatorships, or monarchies, or theocracies, or communism, or kennyism, or any number of religions?

...never?

Removing this would lead to a homogenization of member governments in the long run.

That's what the WA is for.

The rule doesn't even make a great deal of sense from an IC perspective. "You can be an evil dictator. You can't have summary executions or punishment without trial or torture or indefinite detention, and you have to recognise freedom of assembly and expression and petitioning and emigration. But sure, you can be an evil dictator."

[Frisbeeteria]

The game itself has a Category system that promotes one specific ideology (Furtherment of Democracy), which I've always thought was silly. If we dump the Category system, we'd be able to focus proposal stats so they actually reflected ideology changes. That way, voting in a Theocratic proposal would actually impact your religion scores, plus whatever content the resolution included. We can't do that currently.

Here are two previous discussions on this rule:
Rethinking the Ruleset

I'm having trouble trying to find a legit example of Idealogy ban, but I concede the possibility that they might exist. Most of them do fall under the category of 'spam' (Ban All Commies and Gayz!!1!), and those I have no idealogical problem deleting.

Nine years later, and I still can't come up with any better examples. I'm for dumping this rule in its entirety, especially if we adopt custom coding.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I would also like to mention this, fairly substantial ruling on the ideological ban rule (which led to a proposal to classify religion as a mental illness being deleted):

Finally, a proposal specifically targeting religion runs into GA#2 (S1, i), which gives legislative force to the OOC rule/game mechanism on ideological bans. In the case of theocracies, it is difficult to see how a proposal requiring most of the individuals in a nation, or even merely all members of its government, to undergo a treatment that will possibly change the personnel, the structure, the administration, the judicial practices and the policies of that government, can avoid interference with the right to "exercise freely ... the choice of its own form of government".

I believe Ardchoille's reading of Rights & Duties is incorrect, and that Rights & Duties does not codify the ideological ban rule into WA law.

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Conveniently snipped was "by any other NationState": the WA isn't a NationState; and Articles 9 & 11 make it clear that the authority of the WA supersedes that of any NationState.

If the rule were removed, Rights & Duties would not preserve it.

[Unibot III]

I -think- the justification for the rule was to help harmonise the game stats with the WA - in the sense that, if you say ban autocracies, your nation can still be autocratic.

But I think that's just another case of where the rule's creators were taking compliance too literally - it takes years to implement sweeping political changes to nations; it makes perfect sense that even a very strong democratic proposal would only 'chip away' at a nation's authoritarianism and not completely reverse it over night.

I also think the fact we had both an ideological ban rule and the Furtherment of Democracy category never made a lick of sense - what were we supposed to discuss about democracy when autocracies were required to follow the laws to?

Overall, I'm in favour of seeing this rule scrapped.

[Excidium Planetis]

After seeing the arguments put forward by the other users here, I too voice my favor of scrapping the rule. Game mechanics and Meta-gaming rules currently prevent the WA from actually altering my nation's ideology, and in a worst case scenario of the WA passing dozens of resolutions with sweeping stat effects that turn my Anarchy (yes, I know at the time of this post I'm a Corporate Bordello, but SPA's repeal coinciding with some bad issue decisions messed me up) into an authoritarian hellhole, I can just leave the WA.

Now, a question: would it be possible to pass a WA resolution that blocked ideology bans? Like one that stated something similar to GA#2 (S1, i) but replaced "any other NationState" with "the WA"?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Now, a question: would it be possible to pass a WA resolution that blocked ideology bans? Like one that stated something similar to GA#2 (S1, i) but replaced "any other NationState" with "the WA"?

I imagine that'll come up in the thread on the "blocker" rule, but I couldn't see why not. There's a resolution to give nations the right to decide whether or not have nuclear weapons, so why not one to give them the right to decide whether or not to have elections?

[Bears Armed]

Doesn't the rule exist so that nations of all types can choose to join the WA without their systems of government immediately becoming 'illegal' under existing resolutions?

[Bears Armed]

Doesn't the rule exist so that nations of all types can choose to join the WA without their systems of government immediately becoming 'illegal' under existing resolutions? If you drop the rule then potentially you could end up effectively excluding a lot more nations from participation.
Imagine if the RL UN had been set up by just the'western allies, with a "No Communist governments or 'one-party states' allowed" rule...

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Doesn't the rule exist so that nations of all types can choose to join the WA without their systems of government immediately becoming 'illegal' under existing resolutions?

Pretty much. If this rule is removed, one could pass a resolution banning religion forcing Christian Democrats, or Railana into non-compliance. If removed we will see an endless stream of arguments, resolutions, repeals, and eventually blockers that will effectively put he rule back in place through legislation. Seems rather counter-productive to remove the rule only to go through all of that. I say leave it.

[Old Hope]

Doesn't the rule exist so that nations of all types can choose to join the WA without their systems of government immediately becoming 'illegal' under existing resolutions?

Pretty much. If this rule is removed, one could pass a resolution banning religion forcing Christian Democrats, or Railana into non-compliance. If removed we will see an endless stream of arguments, resolutions, repeals, and eventually blockers that will effectively put he rule back in place through legislation. Seems rather counter-productive to remove the rule only to go through all of that. I say leave it.

I have to agree. If you restrict some actions, that's usually fine because those nations can still try to go to their ideological goal(like communism).
If you ban the idea or the system as such, there is nothing left and the nations are forced to leave the WA.
Take away something and they might say"Well, we have to accept it"
Take away everything and...
Keep the rule please, and don't change enforcement.

[Christian Democrats]

If this rule is removed, one could pass a resolution banning religion

And who would spearhead the effort to repeal Resolutions 27, 30, and 35?

Freedom of Assembly (GA#27)
All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

Freedom of Expression (GA#30)
Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal.

The Charter of Civil Rights (GA#35)
All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including . . . cultural background . . . religion or belief system.

Taken together, freedom of association, freedom of religious expression, and freedom from religious discrimination obviously sum up to a right to religious liberty. Governments may not prevent people from holding and expressing religious views and from gathering to promote and pursue those views, and they may not treat people worse for their beliefs in and adherence to such principles.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Doesn't the rule exist so that nations of all types can choose to join the WA without their systems of government immediately becoming 'illegal' under existing resolutions?

Pretty much. If this rule is removed, one could pass a resolution banning religion forcing Christian Democrats, or Railana into non-compliance.

So? That a ban on religion would not be popular with some nations is a political argument against passing it, not a legal argument for having a rule against even considering it. A resolution legalising abortion is perfectly legal but obviously makes compliance difficult for Catholic nations.

[Frisbeeteria]

If you restrict some actions, that's usually fine because those nations can still try to go to their ideological goal(like communism).
If you ban the idea or the system as such, there is nothing left and the nations are forced to leave the WA.

Let me just interject here and state that it's virtually impossible (from a code perspective) for a single resolution to move a nation into an opposing idealogical basis. Allowing ideology proposals would move nations in the general direction of those ideologies. They would not make them over entirely, regardless of the text.

If that's the basis of your opposition, it won't happen that way.

[Bananaistan]

This is a pointless discussion. If the rule is scrapped there's still nothing to stop anyone from answering issues in whatever fashion they wish and ending up with whatever form of government results from those choices.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This is a pointless discussion. If the rule is scrapped there's still nothing to stop anyone from answering issues in whatever fashion they wish and ending up with whatever form of government results from those choices.

But that's true of every WA policy. That a nation could ban elections even after the WA mandates legalisation of elections isn't really any different from a nation banning abortion after the WA mandates legalisation of abortion.

[Knootoss]

What Dark Star just said actually makes me wonder whether that is how it is supposed to work, in canon: the WA changes your law, but you're always free to just change it back again afterwards. It does explain why the act of joining the WA does nothing (as your laws aren't brought into compliance with the existing body of law) and you can theoretically dodge the impact of a WA resolution by temporarily leaving...