General Assembly Q&A

[Imperium Anglorum]

Secondarily, may I implore the moderators to append, at the bottom of their rulings, some kind of search tag that would allow for that ruling to be easily found? It will, due to phpBB, have to be a single 'word', perhaps something like #secretariatruling.

I'm prefacing every official ruling with "Ruling of the Secretariat". That should suffice.

Try searching that, and you'll get anything that includes ruling, of, the, and secretariat. By no means an easy link. And the imgur link which Mall speaks of doesn't work either. Not everyone uses it. Also, it's quite flashy. Wouldn't a WA logo at the top make more sense if this is an IC forum?

[Wrapper]

Not if you put it in quotes.

That said... I'm kind of keen on a secretariat logo. Much more so than a hashtag. We'll discuss.

[Araraukar]

Not if you put it in quotes.

That said... I'm kind of keen on a secretariat logo. Much more so than a hashtag. We'll discuss.

But I like the flashing lights thing... You'd just have to get everyone to agree to use that on GA rulings.

[Kaboomlandia]

Not if you put it in quotes.

I tried that. Quotation marks won't work for some reason.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not if you put it in quotes.

I tried that. Quotation marks won't work for some reason.

It is because phpBB splits the keywords before running it through to the MySQL database.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Maybe if the mods started misspelling "Secretariat" in official rulings it would make it easier? "Secretariate," "Secretariet."

[New Charlzilla]

I'm thinking of proposing a sort of flat tax on all members of the WA - can it happen?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm thinking of proposing a sort of flat tax on all members of the WA - can it happen?

1. That's a bad idea. I can think of a pile of arguments on the spot for why. But I won't bother, since arguing economics on the internet with people who have never taken it is a fruitless effort (which is doubly true when you have taken economics).

2. No. Because interfering in domestic taxation per 17 GA would be contradiction of prior legislation.

[Wallenburg]

I'm thinking of proposing a sort of flat tax on all members of the WA - can it happen?

Are you talking about implementing a flat income tax on citizens of all member nations, or taxing the nations themselves? Because creating mandates on domestic tax policy is illegal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm thinking of proposing a sort of flat tax on all members of the WA - can it happen?

Are you talking about implementing a flat income tax on citizens of all member nations, or taxing the nations themselves? Because creating mandates on domestic tax policy is illegal.

Taxing nations themselves is also illegal. 17 GA § 1 "Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states". Reminder, taxes are different from donations.

[Wallenburg]

Are you talking about implementing a flat income tax on citizens of all member nations, or taxing the nations themselves? Because creating mandates on domestic tax policy is illegal.

Taxing nations themselves is also illegal. 17 GA § 1 "Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states". Reminder, taxes are different from donations.

Ah, thank you. I thought as much, but I couldn't remember quite well enough.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Taxing nations themselves is also illegal. 17 GA § 1 "Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states". Reminder, taxes are different from donations.

Ah, thank you. I thought as much, but I couldn't remember quite well enough.

Now, I would argue that further restrictions need to be put in place to avoid something stupid like what the WSA did ever again. The WA should not be in the practice of restricting a nation's freedom to contract or free trade without its own consent.

[Losthaven]

Are you talking about implementing a flat income tax on citizens of all member nations, or taxing the nations themselves? Because creating mandates on domestic tax policy is illegal.

Taxing nations themselves is also illegal. 17 GA § 1 "Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states". Reminder, taxes are different from donations.

I'm not so sure a law providing for direct taxation of member nations would be illegal. I mean, a law taxing citizens directly would definitely be illegal, but just because the WA "shall be funded" by a particular source doesn't mean it can't also be funded by additional sources. Logic 101 tells us that the mandatory inclusion of one term doesn't necessarily exclude another. Since the law expressly disallows funding via taxation of citizens, it stands to reason that if direct taxation of member nations was disallowed the resolution would have said so expressly.

For example, just because police "shall arrest" a person if they believe they violated a restraining order, that doesn't mean police can't arrest someone for, I don't know, littering. Same principle applies here: just because WA shall be funded by source A doesn't mean it can't also be funded by source B.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm not so sure a law providing for direct taxation of member nations would be illegal.

Well, then the rest of that clause... "the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation".

[Losthaven]

I'm not so sure a law providing for direct taxation of member nations would be illegal.

Well, then the rest of that clause... "the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation".

Clearly restricts the WA from "directly" taxing "citizens or residents". Taxing a member nation as a distinct legal entity, or the government of a member nation, would not be direct taxation on the citizens or residents. There's a legal distinction between taxing a person and taxing their government.

Put another way, interpreting that clause to prohibit taxing a nation as a whole would have to ignore the limiting words of "directly" and "citizens or residents".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, you won't get an argument on that subject from me. I was attempting to see whether you would reach the same conclusion I reached last year. And it seems to me that people share it, then. I wrote an attempt to make such taxation illegal in the past. It failed at vote due to bad campaigning. The campaign I gave then was, quite honestly, weak. However, in the lack of future legislation, I will take a very broad reading of that clause.

[Losthaven]

Well, you won't get an argument on that subject from me. I was attempting to see whether you would reach the same conclusion I reached last year. And it seems to me that people share it, then. I wrote an attempt to make such taxation illegal in the past. It failed at vote due to bad campaigning. The campaign I gave then was, quite honestly, weak. However, in the lack of future legislation, I will take a very broad reading of that clause.

The thing it brings to mind for me is the old system of tribute to the great conquerors like Genghis Khan. Roll in and defeat the local army but leave the government and infrastructure intact and demand whoever remains in charge provide you with regular gold/incense/goat/whatever. Now, arguably, the government then had to go out to some goat herder and levy a goat with which to pay the tribute, but that's not the same as Genghis Khan or his agents "directly" requiring that goat herder pay Genghis Khan.

[Araraukar]

Now, arguably, the government then had to go out to some goat herder and levy a goat with which to pay the tribute, but that's not the same as Genghis Khan or his agents "directly" requiring that goat herder pay Genghis Khan.

Comparison between WA and Genghis Khan is very faulty:

Genghis Khan; an absolute ruler, tyrant, head of the best military forces of his time

World Assembly; a coalition of bickering states, most of which have their additional internal bickerings, basically a big ginormous committee whose own rules say it can't have a military

(Sorry, but it just amused me so much to think that GK and WA are basically exact polar opposites.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Comparison between WA and Genghis Khan is very faulty:

Genghis Khan; an absolute ruler, tyrant, head of the best military forces of his time

World Assembly; a coalition of bickering states, most of which have their additional internal bickerings, basically a big ginormous committee whose own rules say it can't have a military

(Sorry, but it just amused me so much to think that GK and WA are basically exact polar opposites.)

The strawman 'NeoNatSov' view is: World Assembly is a dictatorial regime like Hitler which is entirely unified for the total destruction of all peoples and wants to subvert the legitimate governments of all nations.

[Araraukar]

The strawman 'NeoNatSov' view is: World Assembly is a dictatorial regime like Hitler which is entirely unified for the total destruction of all peoples and wants to subvert the legitimate governments of all nations.

Considering that WA membership is entirely optional, that's not a very apt comparison either. Also, WA is (currently anyway) disallowed any military or police forces. Considering Hitler & co. were a military regime (even before he rose to power), it leads to another hilarious opposites situation.

[Separatist Peoples]

The strawman 'NeoNatSov' view is: World Assembly is a dictatorial regime like Hitler which is entirely unified for the total destruction of all peoples and wants to subvert the legitimate governments of all nations.

Considering that WA membership is entirely optional, that's not a very apt comparison either. Also, WA is (currently anyway) disallowed any military or police forces. Considering Hitler & co. were a military regime (even before he rose to power), it leads to another hilarious opposites situation.

You aren't wrong, but since WA membership is necessary for regional defense, its kind of a lose-lose for them. Leave and get raided, stay and be "oppressed".

[Imperium Anglorum]

The strawman 'NeoNatSov' view is: World Assembly is a dictatorial regime like Hitler which is entirely unified for the total destruction of all peoples and wants to subvert the legitimate governments of all nations.

Considering that WA membership is entirely optional, that's not a very apt comparison either. Also, WA is (currently anyway) disallowed any military or police forces. Considering Hitler & co. were a military regime (even before he rose to power), it leads to another hilarious opposites situation.

This is also a strawman.

[Wallenburg]

Considering that WA membership is entirely optional, that's not a very apt comparison either. Also, WA is (currently anyway) disallowed any military or police forces. Considering Hitler & co. were a military regime (even before he rose to power), it leads to another hilarious opposites situation.

This is also a strawman.

Maybe if you completely ditch the definition of "strawman", and substitute it with your own.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is also a strawman.

Maybe if you completely ditch the definition of "strawman", and substitute it with your own.

The strawman 'NeoNatSov' view is: World Assembly is a dictatorial regime like Hitler which is entirely unified for the total destruction of all peoples and wants to subvert the legitimate governments of all nations.

[Wallenburg]

Maybe if you completely ditch the definition of "strawman", and substitute it with your own.

The strawman 'NeoNatSov' view is: World Assembly is a dictatorial regime like Hitler which is entirely unified for the total destruction of all peoples and wants to subvert the legitimate governments of all nations.

Ah, I see. When you said "this", it appeared as if you were calling Ara's post a strawman.