[DEFEATED] National Economic Liberties

[Separatist Peoples]

"But it sounds damn fine to the voters."

Could the taxation method by which each state pays the WA resolutions bills be best served by a National Issues Resolution. Each state can decide whether its citizens pay the WA bill's progressively or flat. And the WA would not be abolished by a backdoor defunding resolution.

OOC: The Issues are an entirely separate part of the game. With literally one exception, National Issues have no bearing on WA membership. One can, technically, legalize slavery according to the National Issues and still be a part of the WA, which outlaws slavery. Its frustrating but very much a bright-line difference.

[NoFrellsGiven]

conflating a basic majority with acceptance of all the associated costs is flat out wrong, and the evidence is basically the last week and a half."

True. Better reporting on the costs / benefits of a WA resolution would be helpful. And then let each nation decide how to pay for them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"The ambassador is attempting to prevent any form of taxation beyond what the General Fund already requires, which is really just a donation."

[...] Defunding the WA altogether is a backdoor attempt to abolish the WA [...]

Read 'WA General Fund' ... or really, the first half of the posts up to this point.

[Separatist Peoples]

conflating a basic majority with acceptance of all the associated costs is flat out wrong, and the evidence is basically the last week and a half."

True. Better reporting on the costs / benefits of a WA resolution would be helpful. And then let each nation decide how to pay for them.

OOC: Theoretically, the current system of donations has yet to cause any issues, IC or otherwise. Its just as reasonable to pretend the WA gnomes are all excellent investors who turn pittance donations into trillions through venture capitalism as it is to pretend that the donations are sufficient in their own right.

[NoFrellsGiven]

True. Better reporting on the costs / benefits of a WA resolution would be helpful. And then let each nation decide how to pay for them.

OOC: Theoretically, the current system of donations has yet to cause any issues, IC or otherwise. Its just as reasonable to pretend the WA gnomes are all excellent investors who turn pittance donations into trillions through venture capitalism as it is to pretend that the donations are sufficient in their own right.

Good explanation. But the idea that nations are opposed to more internationalism due to costs while the gnomes can sort it all out is confusing. We should see the immediate economic hit of a resolution and the projected payoffs.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Theoretically, the current system of donations has yet to cause any issues, IC or otherwise. Its just as reasonable to pretend the WA gnomes are all excellent investors who turn pittance donations into trillions through venture capitalism as it is to pretend that the donations are sufficient in their own right.

Good explanation. The idea that nations are opposed to more internationalism due to costs while the gnomes can sort it all out is confusing. We should see the immediate economic hit of a resolution and the projected payoffs.

OOC: Theres no way the game coding can handle that. Not beyond the "Economic Strength" score we can see. And since the donations are vague, concerns about costs of proposals is legitimate, since the exact workings of the WA are, ICly, a mystery.

[NoFrellsGiven]

OOC: Theres no way the game coding can handle that. Not beyond the "Economic Strength" score we can see. And since the donations are vague, concerns about costs of proposals is legitimate, since the exact workings of the WA are, ICly, a mystery.

I think costs on GDP and interest rates would be easy to program for modern times. The lack of limits to growth and the pre and post history scenarios are more difficult. I have been ignoring peaks and for the sci fi element I have been building silos between great differences in technology. Which may fall in line with something like the prime directive. But I dont know if that is inclusive enough for the real world. To bad we dont have real world examples of interactions with alien civilizations.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"The ambassador is attempting to prevent any form of taxation beyond what the General Fund already requires, which is really just a donation."

If this is all that the honorable ambassador is attempting, then I would strongly advise him to alter the draft to ban any future mandatory contributions or fees. Trying to differentiate between mandatory and non-mandatory contributions (or donations, if you will) will only ensure that the "assess" "shitshow" continues to fester, and it will poison your draft.

Commonly blockers (which is what this seems to be) will use language to the effect: "with the exception of those required by preexisting resolutions still in effect" or something like that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"The ambassador is attempting to prevent any form of taxation beyond what the General Fund already requires, which is really just a donation."

If this is all that the honorable ambassador is attempting, then I would strongly advise him to alter the draft to ban any future mandatory contributions or fees. Trying to differentiate between mandatory and non-mandatory contributions (or donations, if you will) will only ensure that the "assess" "shitshow" continues to fester, and it will poison your draft.

Commonly blockers (which is what this seems to be) will use language to the effect: "with the exception of those required by preexisting resolutions still in effect" or something like that.

Best to make it clear.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Theres no way the game coding can handle that. Not beyond the "Economic Strength" score we can see. And since the donations are vague, concerns about costs of proposals is legitimate, since the exact workings of the WA are, ICly, a mystery.

Well, I hope you have seen the chronic diarrhoeal shitshow in which we all (except for Jarish Inyo) determined that General Fund 'donations' are compulsory.

Better reporting on the costs / benefits of a WA resolution would be helpful. And then let each nation decide how to pay for them.

They are forced to pay money to the General Fund in the form of donations. The General Fund also sets up the General Accounting Office which audits the World Assembly yearly and returns any surpluses. Nations cannot decide how to pay for World Assembly programmes individually as they are billed by the General Fund on every fiscal year.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: No, it's the"Prohibits" and "Forbids" wording.
You can legally acknowledge in a proposal that whatever you're discussing should & shall be handled at the national level rather than by the WA, as long as that's not all you do (and clauses 5 & 6 here do get you away from the potential 'pure blocker' and 'committee-only' situations), but you can't legally Prohibit/Forbid future WA action outright.
Sorry.

I just read the rules sticky again. Where does it state that?

It's an aspect of how the Mods have always interpreted this section:

Blockers

Resolutions cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

To summarize regarding blockers: being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged. That, or closing off an entire area of WA legislation -- say, "RESERVES to nations the power to make all decisions on all matters concerning the human rights of their citizens and residents" -- or trying to write the "unrepealable" resolution: "RESOLVES that the WA shall never speak of this again".

We've definitely had rulings in the past (although maybe not since the move from Jolt?) that that ban extends to this sort of wording, because as the GA exists to legislate it can't pass a resolution explicitly surrendering that power...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We've definitely had rulings in the past (although maybe not since the move from Jolt?)

That helps a lot.

Both Rights and Duties and WA General Fund contain language banning certain WA activities (although they say "that WA will not X").

[Imperium Anglorum]

We've definitely had rulings in the past (although maybe not since the move from Jolt?)

That helps a lot.

Both Rights and Duties and WA General Fund contain language banning certain WA activities (although they say "that WA will not X").

Yes, I came across the language in those two resolutions last night when I was really tired. Bears, could I see those rulings in the past (if they are in the Jolt Archives)?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I doubt anyone knows of any specific ruling. If you get in trouble for it (and it's doubtful since the mods all seem to be on vacation), just point to #2 and #17 and say we've done it before.

[Celsuis]

"Ambassador, the delegation of Celsuis appreciates your concern about national economics liberties and notes that your effort to reduce the WA's ability to interfere with national economies is a noble one. However, we are adamantly opposed to the final line of this draft, which reads, 'Directs member nations to prohibit egregious examples of insider trading and take actions to liberalise the proliferation of market information'. This is directly contrary to the objective of your resolution and insider trading is in no way a concern of government. If stockholders wish to hold shares with the confidence that people with confidential information are not using that information to their own benefit, they ought to use an exchange with an injunction against it. There is also a very fine line between research and insider trading. You fail to specify exactly what this is. For the resolution in its current form, we stand Against."

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is directly contrary to the objective of your resolution and insider trading is in no way a concern of government. If stockholders wish to hold shares with the confidence that people with confidential information are not using that information to their own benefit, they ought to use an exchange with an injunction against it.

Egregious insider trading is absolutely the concern of government. Central to the concept of a free market is the availability and fair trade of information. Next thing, you'll be telling us that governments should not take actions against monopolies or that what ENRON did should be legal. The last clause says that action should be taken against egregious insider trading. It is your prerogative to define to what extent a certain case of insider trading is egregious.

There is also a very fine line between research and insider trading.

Exactly. I'm not attempting to prohibit insider trading. Read the proposal.

[Celsuis]

This is directly contrary to the objective of your resolution and insider trading is in no way a concern of government. If stockholders wish to hold shares with the confidence that people with confidential information are not using that information to their own benefit, they ought to use an exchange with an injunction against it.

Egregious insider trading is absolutely the concern of government. Central to the concept of a free market is the availability and fair trade of information. Next thing, you'll be telling us that governments should not take actions against monopolies or that what ENRON did should be legal. The last clause says that action should be taken against egregious insider trading. It is your prerogative to define to what extent a certain case of insider trading is egregious.

"Central to the concept of a free market is the availability and fair trade of information without coercion, especially in the forms of price and demand. The free market is all about voluntary exchanges, and only voluntary exchanges. If stockholders wish to use an exchange where egregious insider trading is prohibited, it is their choice to do so. If this is so crucial to a functional economy, demand will force all exchanges to have such a prohibition, but a blanket ban by government is directly contrary to economic liberty. The delegation of Celsuis suggests that you change the text of the last line to read:
'Directs Recommends member nations to prohibit egregious examples of insider trading and take actions to liberalise market information', or excise it entirely."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Central to the concept of a free market is the availability and fair trade of information without coercion, especially in the forms of price and demand. The free market is all about voluntary exchanges, and only voluntary exchanges.

And nothing in the resolution forces someone to make an exchange.

If stockholders wish to use an exchange where egregious insider trading is prohibited, it is their choice to do so. If this is so crucial to a functional economy, demand will force all exchanges to have such a prohibition, but a blanket ban by government is directly contrary to economic liberty.

In the same way that a blanket ban by the government on monopolies allows for competition. Insider trading suppresses competition and the free distribution of information. Ridiculously egregious examples of it lead to market failures. Gaming the market for personal advantage in an unfair manner does nothing more than decrease the producer and consumer surpluses given by those markets.

The delegation of Celsuis suggests that you change the text of the last line to read:
'Directs Recommends member nations to prohibit egregious examples of insider trading and take actions to liberalise market information', or excise it entirely."

The resolution has to do something other than blocking future legislation.

[Celsuis]

"Central to the concept of a free market is the availability and fair trade of information without coercion, especially in the forms of price and demand. The free market is all about voluntary exchanges, and only voluntary exchanges.

And nothing in the resolution forces someone to make an exchange.

If stockholders wish to use an exchange where egregious insider trading is prohibited, it is their choice to do so. If this is so crucial to a functional economy, demand will force all exchanges to have such a prohibition, but a blanket ban by government is directly contrary to economic liberty.

In the same way that a blanket ban by the government on monopolies allows for competition. Insider trading suppresses competition and the free distribution of information. Ridiculously egregious examples of it lead to market failures. Gaming the market for personal advantage in an unfair manner does nothing more than decrease the producer and consumer surpluses given by those markets.

The delegation of Celsuis suggests that you change the text of the last line to read:
'Directs Recommends member nations to prohibit egregious examples of insider trading and take actions to liberalise market information', or excise it entirely."

The resolution has to do something other than blocking future legislation.

"Point taken, ambassador. The clause should be flexible enough to be interpreted as needed to protect everyday traders and safeguard economic freedom. We reverse our decision and publicly declare support for this resolution."

[Bears Armed]

We've definitely had rulings in the past (although maybe not since the move from Jolt?)

That helps a lot.

Both Rights and Duties and WA General Fund contain language banning certain WA activities (although they say "that WA will not X").

OOC: But one can hardly consider 'Rights and Duties' -- written by a Mod, in an attemnpt at converting some of the game's rules from purely OOC to having an IC context too -- as typical of what the Mods will allow, can one?

Wasn't it you yourself who pointed out that part of that resolution's was based so closely on a RL UN document that it would probably have been struck down for plagiarism if it had been submitted by anybody else?

And as for 'WA General Fund', at least it says what the WA will do about the matter concerned before saying what it won't do.

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

That difference in style might seem an over-subtle point to argue, to some people, but in my opinion it probably would mean the difference between "acceptable proposal" and "illegal blocker".

[Imperium Anglorum]

I've submitted the proposal, having reread the rules sticky and found no mention of a prohibition on such language. The relevant sections speak about prohibiting the WA from making something unrepealable, which this clearly isn't, and making something simply a blocker, which this isn't either.

Resolutions cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

Here, the rules prohibit a type is legislation. This has long been interpreted as a prohibition on something which states that 'all human rights shall be handled by the constituent states' or such over-general statements. My proposal does not make anything repeal-proof or prohibit a large type of legislation. It doesn't even prohibit funding itself. Nor does the proposal prohibit the World Assembly from repealing it. There is nothing which could be interpretable as doing that in the proposal.

being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged

This clarifying sentence after the sentence above, I believe, should make it clear. The proposal is not simply a blocker. Thus, it does not run afoul of this rule.

Furthermore,

1. Assisted Suicide Act stated quite similarly that the World Assembly 'Prohibits the use of World Assembly funds for assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures',
   
   
2. Convict Appellate Rights 'PROHIBITS the limitation or restriction of the right of convicts to appeal their convictions based on time passed since conviction' by both the World Assembly and member nations, and
   
   
3. A Ban on Forced Disappearances 'Prohibits member nations, and the World Assembly from forcing the disappearance of any individual' which also applies to the World Assembly and member nations.

[Mikemapolis]

The insider trading laws requirement is completly irrelavent to limiting the taxation power of the WA. I cannot approve of any legislation that contains irrelevent riders. Even if I happen to not be particularly against the rider.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Not to be an insane nitpicker, but... technically, all WA member states' national governments are 'institutions... accountable to the World Assembly' under the definition given in Paragraph 1. We'll have to oppose any attempt such as this to prohibit member states from setting their own tax policies."

"I don't get how capitalist countries' citizens still let them get away with 'fast tracking' their laws... It ends in tears every time... "

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Not to be an insane nitpicker, but... technically, all WA member states' national governments are 'institutions... accountable to the World Assembly' under the definition given in Paragraph 1. We'll have to oppose any attempt such as this to prohibit member states from setting their own tax policies."

"I don't get how capitalist countries' citizens still let them get away with 'fast tracking' their laws... It ends in tears every time... "

Parsons: (dumbfounded) It must be created by the World Assembly and accountable to the World Assembly. Problem never existed. Unless these member nations you're speaking of are created by the World Assembly...

[Imperium Anglorum]

The insider trading laws requirement is completly irrelavent to limiting the taxation power of the WA. I cannot approve of any legislation that contains irrelevent riders. Even if I happen to not be particularly against the rider.

Parsons: (annoyed for having repeated this many many times already) 'It would be illegal if not for that clause. The clause is necessary to not run afoul of the Secretariat rules on blockers'