[REMOVED FROM THE FLOOR] End the Property Black Market

[Kropotkinite Kommune]

COMRADES, it will come as no surprise to those of you presiding over FREE-THINKING, UTOPIAN nations that many of our countries are INFECTED with a most terrible strain of the capitalist virus.

Undermining our vales of COMMUNITY and PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY, greedy individuals take it upon themselves to exploit the arrangements we have in place regarding retail property and accommodation for our citizens for their own selfish gains.

While private property is of course rightfully ILLEGAL in many of our states, this shady underground market still continues to exist, in some cases trading ACROSS OUR BORDERS! Surely it is in ALL of our interests to clamp down on these practices - together, cooperating on an international scale to bring about the demise of the illicit profiteering from PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE COMMUNITY!

HEREBY this inevitable resolution's proposals read thusly:

(1) In solidarity with each other, nations of the opinion that further measures should be taken on an international level - with specific emphasis placed on the term 'inter-nation' - to combat the aforementioned illegal trading are to sign a Treaty representing their alliance regarding this matter. Said Treaty's terms would of course be a matter of debate for the relevant nations, but are proposed to stray little from the following main recommendations -

i. If property markets are not already illegal in a given locality, nations signing this agreement do so on the basis that they are to immediately bring all retail, industrial and residential buildings into state/community ownership and criminalise the existence of private property.

ii. A percentage of police and/or military resources - to be agreed if/when this proposal is successful - are to be allocated by each signatory state to combating the illegal trade in property within both their own and neighbouring nations.

iii. Nations found to be neglecting their duties in regard to combating this evil - or perhaps even supporting it! - regardless of whether they are in agreement with this Treaty or not are to be subject to a heavy trade embargo by the signatories.

Further clauses and terms may arise in regard to this matter but the above will provide a reasonable outline of this proposal and any action resulting that concerns the aforementioned Treaty.

FOR EQUALITY!

The above proposal has been taken off the table.

[Tenenza]

"Regardless of content, the tone of this draft isn't exactly persuasive to all nations. The idea itself is impossible. Your proposal only applies to certain nations that are of a certain class of communism ideology, and generalizes this as a majority. The reality is that there are probably an equal amount of communism nations as every other ideology, which is to say about maybe 5-20% max. This means that your enforcement method is really only isolating and weakening the very nations it's supposed to be appealing to. Frankly, this is more of an alliance idea, not one for the World Assembly."
- Emissary Ospree I.L.O

[Point Breeze]

Tone it down a little, Ambassador, and please refer to the attached documents before taking this draft any further.

OOC: please read the links in my signature and rewrite your draft accordingly.

[Ryccia]

This is the most absurd thing ever! Forcing people at a HUGE ECONOMICAL SCALE to follow this?! I would not put my military to vigilate the black market because you said so! And criminalize private property! Absurd, ridiculous! Unbelieable! People have the right to have their own property and the government shouldn't take it! Ugh!

[Normlpeople]

OOC: This would seem to be a nice ideological ban. There is a healthy dose of metagaming, optionality and branding as well. I would suggest reading the rules/faq sticky, as well as past resolutions, before trying again. Since this is illegal, it's a non-starter.

[Chester Pearson]

So now we are forcing Communism upon everyone? Be sure to target The Internationale when you are looking for approvals, they will be all over this....

Edit: And they actually went ahead and submitted this bullshit.

[The Two Jerseys]

Wants to force communism down everyone's throat, submits as "mild" strength...

[Bears Armed]

Wants to force communism down everyone's throat, submits as "mild" strength...

Well, as it's totally optional...

[Herby]

Well, at least "HEREBY" is spelled correctly. I would have a lot of trouble doing all those things in this proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Like hell. Opposed."

[Kropotkinite Kommune]

"Our first stride towards progress in the General Assembly chamber has been somewhat of a stumble. The proposal as it stands presently has been withdrawn. A heavy rewrite is pending."

- General Secretary of the Kropotkinite Kommune.

[Normlpeople]

I would repeat the earlier suggestion of reading the rules/faq as well as the past resolutions stickies before making such an attempt. Skipping the propaganda, and adopting a less combative tone, would also help matters.

[Ardchoille]

I went with "optionality", but on further consideration, "internal contradiction" might have been better.

It is possible to make a legal proposal that simply can't apply to all nations (eg, FGM or Circumcision can't apply to nations without the requisite physical characteristics). Such proposals aren't optional -- they don't say "everyone can choose whether to do this" -- they're just limited in scope. This one applied to "nations of the opinion that further measures should be taken on an international level ... to combat the aforementioned illegal trading [in property]". So (without looking too closely at how this would be determined) nations not of that opinion could simply take the stance that the law didn't apply to them, just as penis-cutting laws don't apply if your people don't have penises. But "opinion" nations must sign the treaty.

But Clause iii seems to say that even nations that are excluded from the vital "opinion" definition have duties towards it. At first, since this took it out of the "can't apply" style of proposal, it seemed to spill it into optionality. But I'm now thinking it's more an internal contradiction: nations can be in the class "non-opinion-holders" but still have to act like opinion-holders, rendering the law inapplicable.

I don't see branding as such, though "comrades" might be read as parallelling "I". Not ideological ban; nations not of the alliance's ideology weren't banned from existing.

Fellow nitpickers might like to play with the idea that the alliance was a Committee and everything in the proposal related to the alliance, making it fall afoul of Just-a-Committee.

Whatever, all this added up to so many ways of reading it as illegal that it had to go.

Still, Kropotkinite Kommune, you made a good start by posting a draft to the forum, and the category might have worked. Next time, please don't submit a proposal until you've checked out the points more experienced players raise, as that will save you from receiving warnings for illegal proposals. Follow up the Rules link given in the mod TG you've received, and also check the Past Resolutions thread to see if what you plan duplicates or contradicts any existing Resolutions. And don't roleplay in the text of the proposal; you can do that during drafting, or in the debate. Remember, GA proposals become law for all member nations.