Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Unibot II wrote:Let's say Unibot offers Glen-Rhodes a preferential trade agreement for say, I dunno, a favorable deal on a piece of Glen-Rhodes land -- I do not see how this is legal under your draft? And furthermore, I do not see why it is any business of the World Assembly to limit Unibot's ability to organize its trade policy to cater to our closest international partners and make it advantageous for them to do things for us.
Oh lookie here, the champion of Ethics in International Trade has suddenly turned economic sovereigntist on us!
Sing it, Alanis!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne9t8sHpUc
Me? "Ethics in International Trade" seeks for the better treatment of laborers by reducing the advantages of ridiculously loose labor restrictions, "World Assembly Trade Rights" brings to the forefront the pressing civil rights campaign for equality that is.. not gays, various races, disadvantaged peoples or others, no no no, something *way* more important: national trade opportunities.
Frankly if people's human rights are being secured, I'm not really caring about nations tying trade advantages and deals to various offers and negotiations -- that seems like functional and realistic policy that respects our nation's imports are our nation's imports and will be exchanged on agreed upon terms unless there is some pressing need for intervention *like* human rights violations; I'm not seeing where equality of trade is such a pressing moral obligation or a universal "threat" as its described in this resolution to be. It's only a "threat" to export nations when they fail to wheel-and-deal trade advantages with Unibot, which is the fault of exporting nations. I agree however that let's say there is a relatively Jewish nation selling something, that nation shouldn't be slapped with a "Jewish" import tax based on prejudice -- if such a thing occurs. But I don't see how that's the main focus of the resolution by any means.