[discussion]Rule Change Summary

[Araraukar]

Aww, your excuse is much cuter than most other people's. Although SP's furry excuses come close.

Phrasing!

Oops.

I meant SP has cute furry pets that serve as valid excuses to do something.

Sorry. Laughing myself to death here.

[Kryozerkia]

I've removed this as an 'announcement' but it won't be locked.

There is a discussion in [DRAFT] Repeal "Quality in Health Services" that seems relevant. I'd like to hear your thoughts here. Do you consider the assertion that GAR#97 prohibits privatized healthcare to be accurate? Other observations? I picked this because the arguments on the surface seem well-reasoned and it is the sort of repeal the Mods may see in a legality challenge.

[Excidium Planetis]

I've removed this as an 'announcement' but it won't be locked.

There is a discussion in [DRAFT] Repeal "Quality in Health Services" that seems relevant. I'd like to hear your thoughts here. Do you consider the assertion that GAR#97 prohibits privatized healthcare to be accurate? Other observations? I picked this because the arguments on the surface seem well-reasoned and it is the sort of repeal the Mods may see in a legality challenge.

I see that as a reasonable interpretation. In fact, because it plainly requires government funding of the healthcare system, it at minimum makes all healthcare subsidized, if not public.

This argument could not be construed as an Honest Mistake or a deliberate falsehood.

[Sciongrad]

I've removed this as an 'announcement' but it won't be locked.

There is a discussion in [DRAFT] Repeal "Quality in Health Services" that seems relevant. I'd like to hear your thoughts here. Do you consider the assertion that GAR#97 prohibits privatized healthcare to be accurate? Other observations? I picked this because the arguments on the surface seem well-reasoned and it is the sort of repeal the Mods may see in a legality challenge.

I see that as a reasonable interpretation. In fact, because it plainly requires government funding of the healthcare system, it at minimum makes all healthcare subsidized, if not public.

This argument could not be construed as an Honest Mistake or a deliberate falsehood.

Whoa, not so fast! GAR#97 requires a government funded healthcare option but it does not prohibit a privatized option. The resolution states in relevant part that:

5) Nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:

a) Allow or not, partial to full participation of private enterprise in their health systems;

You can fashion an argument around the notion that nations shouldn't have to establish a public healthcare system but you can't argue that the resolution prohibits privatized healthcare. And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.

[Araraukar]

Whoa, not so fast! GAR#97 requires a government funded healthcare option but it does not prohibited a privatized option. The resolution states in relevant part that:

5) Nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:

a) Allow or not, partial to full participation of private enterprise in their health systems;

You can fashion an argument around the notion that nations shouldn't have to establish a public healthcare system but you can't argue that the resolution prohibits privatized healthcare. And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.

Personally I think the resolution contradicts itself; if requires majority of funding to come from the government (which usually would mean making the healthcare public), but then turns around and says that it can be private after all. The only sane way to interprete that as non-contradiction that I can see was to say that nations can have private healthcare, but that the government pays them to treat the patients.

[Sciongrad]

Whoa, not so fast! GAR#97 requires a government funded healthcare option but it does not prohibited a privatized option. The resolution states in relevant part that:

You can fashion an argument around the notion that nations shouldn't have to establish a public healthcare system but you can't argue that the resolution prohibits privatized healthcare. And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.

Personally I think the resolution contradicts itself; if requires majority of funding to come from the government (which usually would mean making the healthcare public), but then turns around and says that it can be private after all. The only sane way to interprete that as non-contradiction that I can see was to say that nations can have private healthcare, but that the government pays them to treat the patients.

I assumed it meant that there must be a public option but private options can also exist. For example, England has the NHS, but private options do exist. Either way, the interpretation that GAR#97 permits a private option is reasonable and exists. Repealing it on the basis that there exists another interpretation where private options are prohibited violates reasonable nation theory because no member nation concerned with having their private options prohibited would interpret the resolution that way.

[Christian Democrats]

I've removed this as an 'announcement' but it won't be locked.

There is a discussion in [DRAFT] Repeal "Quality in Health Services" that seems relevant. I'd like to hear your thoughts here. Do you consider the assertion that GAR#97 prohibits privatized healthcare to be accurate? Other observations? I picked this because the arguments on the surface seem well-reasoned and it is the sort of repeal the Mods may see in a legality challenge.

It doesn't prohibit privatized healthcare; it prohibits a privatized healthcare system -- i.e., a system where the private sector predominates.

[Excidium Planetis]

I see that as a reasonable interpretation. In fact, because it plainly requires government funding of the healthcare system, it at minimum makes all healthcare subsidized, if not public.

This argument could not be construed as an Honest Mistake or a deliberate falsehood.

Whoa, not so fast! GAR#97 requires a government funded healthcare option but it does not prohibit a privatized option. The resolution states in relevant part that:

5) Nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:

a) Allow or not, partial to full participation of private enterprise in their health systems;

Yes, GA#97 give nations the freedom to allow private enterprise to participate in their public health systems. That does not make them not public.

GA#97 makes it abundantly clear the health system must be public, but can have some support from the private sector:

2) The health system shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources.

The primary funding for the whole health system must be from national budgets.

You can fashion an argument around the notion that nations shouldn't have to establish a public healthcare system but you can't argue that the resolution prohibits privatized healthcare.

Liagolas doesn't argue that in the repeal. The repeal argues that you can have private healthcare, but not a private health system. It is impossible to reasonably argue that a nation can have a private health system under GA#97.

And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.

They could not reasonably interpret it to allow a private health system. Reasonable Nation Theory only holds up when the interpretation is actually valid. Otherwise, nations could "reasonably" interpret extant laws to allow genocide if they really wanted to commit genocide. You can't have a valid interpretation that somehow ignores the fact that GA#97 explicitly states the health system (not just one form of healthcare) must be funded by the guv'ment.

[Unibot III]

I'll be honest and say I didn't always know what SP was trying to say in GA#96 but I believe "The health system shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources" restricts private healthcare in the conventional sense. You could have a health system financed privately through charity, like a church hospital. Or a humanitarian drive. But paying for services privately isn't "voluntary."

I'm not sure the resolution makes a distinction between care and system, like CD is making. Although it's a neat interpretation.

EDIT: Sciongrad, alternatively though, private healthcare is basically illegal in Canada.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm not sure the resolution makes a distinction between care and system, like CD is making. Although it's a neat interpretation.

A straightforward reading of the resolution makes it clear that private monies are supplemental to a publicly funded system.

[Unibot III]

I'm not sure the resolution makes a distinction between care and system, like CD is making. Although it's a neat interpretation.

A straightforward reading of the resolution makes it clear that private monies are supplemental to a publicly funded system.

That doesn't strike me as a straightforward approach at all. It's old school textualist. I would interpret it more substantively - you can't maintain a two tiered system without perversely stretching the meaning of the clauses.

[Kryozerkia]

This is good. I was thinking something similar but I wanted to hear your take since. You're right, it doesn't stop private care but it does prevent privatized care. That was my prior understanding. Thanks for participating in this exercise. It's helpful to see how you view honest mistake in a specific context.

[Liagolas]

OOC: Oh dear, I didn't know this was going on. Um... like I said in Repeal "Quality in Health Services," I'm going to be too busy this weekend to give really proper responses to all this - I need some time to read everything and think about it - so I'll do that next week... though it seems like you may have already settled the matter?

[Sandaoguo]

And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.

Well, this is the thing isn't it? Is it an Honest Mistake to argue one interpretation in a repeal, when there's a valid interpretation that satisfies the opposing argument?

[Unibot III]

I would say the way the author should write their repeal is to say, quite rightly, that ambiguity in the resolution leaves the state of privatized healthcare in question - and explain how, and then explain why this is a bad thing (which is not necessarily uncontroversial - outside of the US, we don't all believe in two tiered health care systems.)

That way you're saying something that is true about the resolution - there's confusion over a clause - instead of submitting a proposal that cherry picks interpretations in favour of less popular interpretations.

[Sciongrad]

And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.

Well, this is the thing isn't it? Is it an Honest Mistake to argue one interpretation in a repeal, when there's a valid interpretation that satisfies the opposing argument?

When I said Reasonable Nation Theory should be considered when applying the honest mistake rule, this is one of the situations I had in mind. If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead. In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.

By the way, thanks Kryo for having this discussion. It's important and I'm glad you're seeking player input on this issue.

[Unibot III]

Well, this is the thing isn't it? Is it an Honest Mistake to argue one interpretation in a repeal, when there's a valid interpretation that satisfies the opposing argument?

When I said Reasonable Nation Theory should be considered when applying the honest mistake rule, this is one of the situations I had in mind. If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead. In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.

By the way, thanks Kryo for having this discussion. It's important and I'm glad you're seeking player input on this issue.

Reasonable Nation Theory is multi-faced though - and you've actually identified that. There's two parts to RNT:

(1) If a clause can be interpreted in such way that it reaches a prima facie unreasonable conclusion, something ludicrous, that interpretation should be dismissed.

(2) If there are multiple interpretations, nations will always prefer the one that is in their nation's interests. The "reasonable" interpretation.

Prohibiting private healthcare is neither obviously ludicrous, nor necessarily against a state's interests (a state's interests includes the welfare of their citizens.) So really, RNT simply does not apply to this particular problem. This isn't to say that either interpretation is right or wrong, but RNT can't be used to discern which interpretation is right, because both interpretations at least superficially pass RNT.

RNT is more a tool for WA authors than it is for moderators - it's a way for authors to distinguish between legitimate criticism of their proposals and nit-picky bafflegab ("WHAT ABOUT FLYING MONKEY PIGS!?")

[Excidium Planetis]

If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead. In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.

That essentially makes every resolution unrepealable, since every repeal's argument relies on the idea that a nation finds their interpretation of the resolution to be in conflict with their self interest.

[Sciongrad]

If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead. In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.

That essentially makes every resolution unrepealable, since every repeals argument relies on the idea that a nation finds their interpretation of the resolution to be in conflict with their self interest.

That isn't true, unless you're arguing that infinitely many reasonable interpretations exist for every resolution. I'm sure violating the rights of a neutral state is in the interest of many member nations, but no such reasonable interpretation exists in GAR#255 that would allow for that.

[Excidium Planetis]

That essentially makes every resolution unrepealable, since every repeals argument relies on the idea that a nation finds their interpretation of the resolution to be in conflict with their self interest.

That isn't true, unless you're arguing that infinitely many reasonable interpretations exist for every resolution. I'm sure violating the rights of a neutral state is in the interest of many member nations, but no such reasonable interpretation exists in GAR#255 that would allow for that.

And I am arguing that there is no reasonable interpretation of GA#97 that would allow a private health system.

[Sciongrad]

When I said Reasonable Nation Theory should be considered when applying the honest mistake rule, this is one of the situations I had in mind. If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead. In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.

By the way, thanks Kryo for having this discussion. It's important and I'm glad you're seeking player input on this issue.

Reasonable Nation Theory is multi-faced though - and you've actually identified that. There's two parts to RNT:

(1) If a clause can be interpreted in such way that it reaches a prima facie unreasonable conclusion, something ludicrous, that interpretation should be dismissed.

(2) If there are multiple interpretations, nations will always prefer the one that is in their nation's interests. The "reasonable" interpretation.

Prohibiting private healthcare is neither obviously ludicrous, nor necessarily against a state's interests (a state's interests includes the welfare of their citizens.) So really, RNT simply does not apply to this particular problem. This isn't to say that either interpretation is right or wrong, but RNT can't be used to discern which interpretation is right, because both interpretations at least superficially pass RNT.

RNT is more a tool for WA authors than it is for moderators - it's a way for authors to distinguish between legitimate criticism of their proposals and nit-picky bafflegab ("WHAT ABOUT FLYING MONKEY PIGS!?")

I am arguing that from an IC perspective, a member nation will choose the interpretation that most aligns with their interest provided that interpretation reasonably exists - i.e. they will act like a reasonable nation would. Moderators should acknowledge this when making rulings. For a repeal to identify an objectionable interpretation and use that as a basis for a repeal when an alternate reasonable interpretation exists violates Reasonable Nation Theory because it assumes that member nations that would find that first interpretation objectionable would choose to use that interpretation any way. Such an argument violates the Honest Mistake rule because it is deceptive. I'm simply arguing that moderators should take RNT into consideration when making rulings.

[Sciongrad]

That isn't true, unless you're arguing that infinitely many reasonable interpretations exist for every resolution. I'm sure violating the rights of a neutral state is in the interest of many member nations, but no such reasonable interpretation exists in GAR#255 that would allow for that.

And I am arguing that there is no reasonable interpretation of GA#97 that would allow a private health system.

That is not what you said in that post.

[Excidium Planetis]

And I am arguing that there is no reasonable interpretation of GA#97 that would allow a private health system.

That is not what you said in that post.

That post? No. But I said it in this post:

And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.

They could not reasonably interpret it to allow a private health system. Reasonable Nation Theory only holds up when the interpretation is actually valid. Otherwise, nations could "reasonably" interpret extant laws to allow genocide if they really wanted to commit genocide. You can't have a valid interpretation that somehow ignores the fact that GA#97 explicitly states the health system (not just one form of healthcare) must be funded by the guv'ment.

After which (though not in response to) you said:

In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.

The repeal of GA#97 does imply that the only viable interpretation of GA#97 is one that effectively prohibits. Others exist, but they are not reasonable. You have said here that if a repeal argues one interpretation is the only viable one, and others exist (even if they aren't reasonable), that makes the repeal deceptive. Such reasoning makes all repeals illegal, then, since all rely on nations accepting interpretations that go against self interest even if other interpretations are possible.

[Sciongrad]

You have said here that if a repeal argues one interpretation is the only viable one, and others exist (even if they aren't reasonable), that makes the repeal deceptive. Such reasoning makes all repeals illegal, then, since all rely on nations accepting interpretations that go against self interest even if other interpretations are possible.

I 100% did not say that. I specifically and explicitly qualified that an alternate interpretation must be reasonable.

If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead.

That isn't true, unless you're arguing that infinitely many reasonable interpretations exist for every resolution. I'm sure violating the rights of a neutral state is in the interest of many member nations, but no such reasonable interpretation exists in GAR#255 that would allow for that.

I am saying that if two or more reasonable interpretations exist, and a repeal author identifies one but neglects the fact that a reasonable nation would choose the other (and by doing so eliminate the objection raised in the repeal), then that repeal is deceptive.

[Excidium Planetis]

You have said here that if a repeal argues one interpretation is the only viable one, and others exist (even if they aren't reasonable), that makes the repeal deceptive. Such reasoning makes all repeals illegal, then, since all rely on nations accepting interpretations that go against self interest even if other interpretations are possible.

I 100% did not say that. I specifically and explicitly qualified that an alternate interpretation must be reasonable.

You 100% did say that:

In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.

You did not qualify that the "other interpretations" must be reasonable.

I am saying that if two or more reasonable interpretations exist, and a repeal author identifies one but neglects the fact that a reasonable nation would choose the other (and by doing so eliminate the objection raised in the repeal), then that repeal is deceptive.

But if the repeal identifies only one interpretation as reasonable, and you say that there are two, is it an honest mistake? Who is to say your interpretation is actually reasonable?