[SUBMITTED] Repeal "WA General Fund"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Similarly, if the WA mandates taxes, they would have a coerced taxation scheme.

I don't know about that. The resolution doesn't list any penalties for refusing to pay, except for the implied penalties of damaging their credit rating and/or public shaming if the GAO reports that they have never paid their assessed contributions. "Coercion" is usually stronger than that.

[Wrapper]

Not a ruling, but isn't the underlined precisely the reason why there can't be an Honest Mistake violation?

Umm, no? Because the repeal makes very strong implications that the fund is secret, corrupt and can't help itself from doling out favors for big donors -- when in fact the actual legislation requires transparency, regular audits of the GAO, accounting for every penny collected and/or spent, a return of revenue not used, and specifically forbids using monies for any other reason than funding legislative obligations (meaning the GAO could not afford to dole out favors to donors even if it wanted to) -- and the repeal (if it were still active) could be killed on that reason alone?

None of those points were raised in the GHR, which was based solely on the mandatory/voluntary question and claimed that the proposed repeal was factually inaccurate on that basis.

Again, no ruling has been made. If the repeal author is contemplating a resubmission, we'll provide a ruling that not only addresses the original GHR but also addresses the points above as well.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I don't believe that you would find much of an argument in me, actually, I believe that both interpretations are valid ones. If you look back at the positions of this delegation, differing interpretations have taken off over time. If you asked me this a few years ago, I would have told you it is clearly a voluntary scheme. But the author's arguments contrary won me over".

Not a ruling, but isn't the underlined precisely the reason why there can't be an Honest Mistake violation?

That's why I have argued that it is not an Honest Mistake violation on those grounds in this thread.

[Araraukar]

None of those points were raised in the GHR, which was based solely on the mandatory/voluntary question and claimed that the proposed repeal was factually inaccurate on that basis.

Well I don't know who made the GHR, but that clearly isn't the only thing the repeal could be held up for a question of an honest mistake. Unless Kenny made the GHR, it's not his fault someone else uses a failed argument.

Even if WAGF was repealed, General Fund itself would continue to exist due to 2 other extant resolutions referencing it, which defeats the repeal's intention of wiping it out. And as it counts as a committee, future resolutions could still use it.

Again, no ruling has been made. If the repeal author is contemplating a resubmission, we'll provide a ruling that not only addresses the original GHR but also addresses the points above as well.

OOC: I thought you guys didn't deal with legality questions that weren't posted in Moderation or put into a GHR?

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;

I wonder about this bit of the WAGF resolution. It doesn't say "shall be funded only by donations", it just forbids levying taxes of the inhabitants of the WA member nations. Couldn't the nations themselves still be taxed? (I know we had something like this attempted not too long ago, but I can't remember what the verdict was on it.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

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;

I wonder about this bit of the WAGF resolution. It doesn't say "shall be funded only by donations", it just forbids levying taxes of the inhabitants of the WA member nations. Couldn't the nations themselves still be taxed? (I know we had something like this attempted not too long ago, but I can't remember what the verdict was on it.)

#me. There was no verdict. No ruling was reached, if I recall correctly.

[Wrapper]

OOC: I thought you guys didn't deal with legality questions that weren't posted in Moderation or put into a GHR?

I believe the GHR on this is still open (not a Game Mod, so can't check directly). If the author wants to pursue this further, and keep the same basic argument in the repeal, we'll have to answer that GHR and make a ruling. Note that we can always go beyond what's in the GHR and address other legality issues, if they're brought to our attention or if we make note of something not otherwise addressed.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

None of those points were raised in the GHR, which was based solely on the mandatory/voluntary question and claimed that the proposed repeal was factually inaccurate on that basis.

Well I don't know who made the GHR, but that clearly isn't the only thing the repeal could be held up for a question of an honest mistake. Unless Kenny made the GHR, it's not his fault someone else uses a failed argument.

Even if WAGF was repealed, General Fund itself would continue to exist due to 2 other extant resolutions referencing it, which defeats the repeal's intention of wiping it out. And as it counts as a committee, future resolutions could still use it.

No, the GAO is the "committee"; the General Fund is just the fund they manage. I have been complaining for years that resolutions earmarking WAGF for specific purposes are committing HOC violations -- since if the fund were repealed there'd be no way to pay for such mandates. The GAO would still exist, since other resolutions use it for other purposes; they just wouldn't have any money owing to no longer being authorized to collect funds.

[Excidium Planetis]

Well I don't know who made the GHR, but that clearly isn't the only thing the repeal could be held up for a question of an honest mistake. Unless Kenny made the GHR, it's not his fault someone else uses a failed argument.

Even if WAGF was repealed, General Fund itself would continue to exist due to 2 other extant resolutions referencing it, which defeats the repeal's intention of wiping it out. And as it counts as a committee, future resolutions could still use it.

No, the GAO is the "committee"; the General Fund is just the fund they manage. I have been complaining for years that resolutions earmarking WAGF for specific purposes are committing HOC violations -- since if the fund were repealed there'd be no way to pay for such mandates. The GAO would still exist, since other resolutions use it for other purposes; they just wouldn't have any money owing to no longer being authorized to collect funds.

This raises a question: Would it be legal to make a resolution which specified a way for the GAO to collect donations in the event that the General Fund is repealed? We have precedent for resolutions which have delayed effects, and it isn't an amendment if it doesn't change any of the original resolution, right?

[Imperium Anglorum]

No, the GAO is the "committee"; the General Fund is just the fund they manage. I have been complaining for years that resolutions earmarking WAGF for specific purposes are committing HOC violations -- since if the fund were repealed there'd be no way to pay for such mandates. The GAO would still exist, since other resolutions use it for other purposes; they just wouldn't have any money owing to no longer being authorized to collect funds.

This raises a question: Would it be legal to make a resolution which specified a way for the GAO to collect donations in the event that the General Fund is repealed? We have precedent for resolutions which have delayed effects, and it isn't an amendment if it doesn't change any of the original resolution, right?

Hmmmmm... I'm not sure. I'd like to see someone do it and get a ruling on it.

[Excidium Planetis]

This raises a question: Would it be legal to make a resolution which specified a way for the GAO to collect donations in the event that the General Fund is repealed? We have precedent for resolutions which have delayed effects, and it isn't an amendment if it doesn't change any of the original resolution, right?

Hmmmmm... I'm not sure. I'd like to see someone do it and get a ruling on it.

The only issue is category. But if we jammed that provision into another resolution on a similar topic, perhaps we could get around that. Wait, what was the category of the original resolution?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, the GAO is the "committee"; the General Fund is just the fund they manage. I have been complaining for years that resolutions earmarking WAGF for specific purposes are committing HOC violations -- since if the fund were repealed there'd be no way to pay for such mandates. The GAO would still exist, since other resolutions use it for other purposes; they just wouldn't have any money owing to no longer being authorized to collect funds.

This raises a question: Would it be legal to make a resolution which specified a way for the GAO to collect donations in the event that the General Fund is repealed? We have precedent for resolutions which have delayed effects, and it isn't an amendment if it doesn't change any of the original resolution, right?

It's also been suggested that any replacement also be named the "General Fund." The name is not particularly unique, so you can't really charge the replacement author with "plagiarism," the way you could with the "GESTAPO" from the customs resolution.

The only issue is category. But if we jammed that provision into another resolution on a similar topic, perhaps we could get around that. Wait, what was the category of the original resolution?

FOD.

There's also the issue with confusion, since both the main fund and the contingency fund would have to be named "General Fund" to prevent the resolutions you cited from losing their funding.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's also been suggested that any replacement also be named the "General Fund." The name is not particularly unique, so you can't really charge the replacement author with "plagiarism," the way you could with the "GESTAPO" from the customs resolution.

#sidestep with 'Passport Organisation'.

[Araraukar]

No, the GAO is the "committee"; the General Fund is just the fund they manage.

OOC: If courts can count as committees, a fund probably can too, as a substructure of the GAO.

If GAO is the committee, but it's GF that is mentioned in other resolutions, shouldn't the subsequent resolutions have been illegal for house of cards, as their financing was based on the Fund?

Additionally, even if GF didn't count as a committee and its original resolution was repealed, there is a good argument to be made that everything that came before the repeal, would still be funded the same way they were prior to the repeal, as their funding wasn't directly tied to the GF by actually mentioning it by name. (If that made sense, about to crawl to bed so brain is a bit fuzzy.)

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, the GAO is the "committee"; the General Fund is just the fund they manage.

OOC: If courts can count as committees, a fund probably can too, as a substructure of the GAO.

That's likely where you are confused. A court can be a committee because it has sapient members who can make decisions on its behalf. What basically amounts to a vault with a bunch of money in it can't be a committee, because it's just money, silly. Money cannot make decisions.

If GAO is the committee, but it's GF that is mentioned in other resolutions, shouldn't the subsequent resolutions have been illegal for house of cards, as their financing was based on the Fund?

In short, yes. But apparently the mods either didn't see it that way or weren't paying attention.

Additionally, even if GF didn't count as a committee and its original resolution was repealed, there is a good argument to be made that everything that came before the repeal, would still be funded the same way they were prior to the repeal, as their funding wasn't directly tied to the GF by actually mentioning it by name.

Also yes. But the resolutions that specifically reference the WAGF are screwed, unless the replacement is also named WAGF -- or contains language to the effect of "to fund all missions of the World Assembly, regardless of any funding source they might have formerly received"...?

[Imperium Anglorum]

a vault with a bunch of money in it can't be a committee, because it's just money, silly. Money cannot make decisions.

Watch some puppet come in here called 'Sapient Money'.

[Sapient Money]

a vault with a bunch of money in it can't be a committee, because it's just money, silly. Money cannot make decisions.

Watch some puppet come in here called 'Sapient Money'.

You called?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Watch some puppet come in here called 'Sapient Money'.

You called?

Question: unless your race of sapient dollar bills is actually willing to be exploited as monetary objects, can you really be considered "money"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

You called?

Question: unless your race of sapient dollar bills is actually willing to be exploited as monetary objects, can you really be considered "money"?

Gets pretty close to our ban on slavery. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bears Armed]

Question: unless your race of sapient dollar bills is actually willing to be exploited as monetary objects, can you really be considered "money"?

Gets pretty close to our ban on slavery. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They do seem to be their own nation's currency:

Average income is 65,984 Sapient Dollars, with the richest citizens earning 6.5 times as much as the poorest.

However

Sapient Money's national animal is the Bitcoin, which can occasionally be seen sifting through garbage in the nation's cities.

[Sapient Cardboard]

Watch some puppet come in here called 'Sapient Money'.

You called?

Remember, my friend, there is a home for you with your sapient brothers.

[Stable Cities]

After Reading All The Reasons For And Against And More Weight Leans On The Against It IsThe Will Of The Current Sitting President To Vote Opposed.

[Sapient Money]

You called?

Question: unless your race of sapient dollar bills is actually willing to be exploited as monetary objects, can you really be considered "money"?

A Canadian Dollar drifts onto a podium in the drafting chamber and begins speaking to the author. "Thousands of my brethren have given their lives for the General Fund, why would you want to repeal it and leave them stuck in limbo?"

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: You need a money-related flag.

And I think this has wandered so far off of the original topic that the mods are likely to lock it soon.

[Kaboomlandia]

Ambassador Miller taps his microphone in he main drafting chamber, causing all the ambassadors near the speaker to wince in pain.

"Just curious, if the General Fund is repealed, what happens to all the resolutions that get their money off the Fund?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Fund is not the same as the GAO. A pot of cash can't be a committee.