GA Ruling?

[Topid]

I began drafting a proposal recently that may be illegal. At first I somewhat assumed it was too, but now I have no idea. People who know far more about the GA than I are arguing over it now in the thread.

The question, is giving people in communist states the right to own land an ideological ban? I thought so at first. But after considering past GA resolutions, we can give people the right to privacy and expression and assembly in big-brother dictatorships that want to control people extremely... And I don't see why that is legal, when my idea is illegal. The GAers in my thread came up with many more examples for both sides, and explained the situation far better than I can.

Both would be giving a right to the peoples that some ideologies think they should not have. So I don't see why one is legal and one is not.

Another point was raised moments ago, regarding a conflict with an existing resolution. But I don't see that conflict.

I'm not sure I want to continue with this proposal anyway, it's a far more controversial issue than I originally thought. If a mod would address the legality charges, I'll have more information as to whether to continue or not, even though I may not want to if the proposal would be legal.

Thanks!

EDIT: And, MODS ONLY. If you (non-mod) want to discuss this, link is above, leave this thread alone.

[Ardchoille]

It's illegal coming, going and standing still. Using "property" to mean "anything that's owned" may drag it into a number of different categories and into conflict with various proposals -- I didn't check, I'm just wary of such broad bases; they trip many a player.

Limiting it to "land" forbids not only communist states, but also the sort of arrangement that Enn defined (stewardship of land), the sort that some of the more fantasy-oriented nations have (their "land" is a self-aware entity, or a god) and others where, say, an environmental lobby has succeeded in having "the land" declared a person by legal fiction, just as a corporation now is under recent RL US law. Consider, too, land ownership by a "line marriage" -- one that extends both ways in time, but is not any one individual. Anything that means the WA would have to undo or reinterpret large swathes of existing legislation is going to die horribly in a back alley long before it makes quorum.

Krioval's interpretation may not be what you intended, but I can see how it could be read that way. I do read back through debates to see what the author intended when I'm trying to work out the extent of a proposal, but in the long run, once your words are WA legislation, they're open to others' interpretation.

Your attempt to exclude "government" from the term "entity" is also pretty doom-laden, but I think you probably get the picture by now.

[Topid]

I'm getting the picture that NEF was a jewel in the rough for NatSov supporters, as it apparently allows national gov'ts free reign over all private matters in their land? That seems to be a bit exteme, and my guess, unintentional, but whatever. And I still think Right to Own Property would effect the communist ideology just as much as Right to Privacy and even Expression and Assembly effect authoritarian ideologies... But seeing as that point isn't being addressed by anyone but Bears Armed...

[Bears Armed]

It's illegal coming, going and standing still. Using "property" to mean "anything that's owned" may drag it into a number of different categories and into conflict with various proposals -- I didn't check, I'm just wary of such broad bases; they trip many a player.

Limiting it to "land" forbids not only communist states, but also the sort of arrangement that Enn defined (stewardship of land), the sort that some of the more fantasy-oriented nations have (their "land" is a self-aware entity, or a god) and others where, say, an environmental lobby has succeeded in having "the land" declared a person by legal fiction, just as a corporation now is under recent RL US law. Consider, too, land ownership by a "line marriage" -- one that extends both ways in time, but is not any one individual.

Excuse me, please: Are you saying that 'line marriage' counts as a full-fledged "ideology" for the purpose of -- and is therefore protected under -- the rules on writing proposals?!?

[Ardchoille]

Excuse me, please: Are you saying that 'line marriage' counts as a full-fledged "ideology" for the purpose of -- and is therefore protected under -- the rules on writing proposals?!?

No.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm getting the picture that NEF was a jewel in the rough for NatSov supporters, as it apparently allows national gov'ts free reign over all private matters in their land? That seems to be a bit exteme, and my guess, unintentional, but whatever.

I'm pretty sure it was Krioval's intent was to prevent the World Assembly from regulating purely domestic commerce. NatSov resolutions are few and far between, but they're pretty powerful whenever you see them. But, just to correct a minor error: NEF doesn't give nations free reign. The 'general restriction' of commerce has to be justified, meaning such commerce has to be harmful to populations. Additionally, nations have to compensate for property they take. (Though, I'm pretty I came up with some loophole for bypassing that first bit.)

And I still think Right to Own Property would effect the communist ideology just as much as Right to Privacy and even Expression and Assembly effect authoritarian ideologies... But seeing as that point isn't being addressed by anyone but Bears Armed...

I addressed it. May not be a mod opinion, but I'd bet it's pretty close!

It's like the dictatorships and theocracies having to allow 'freedom of expression' now, and the 'Nazi' nations not being alowed their genocide if they want to be in the WA, and nations modelled on historical [RL] ones in which slavery played an important role not being allowed that.

OOC: The difference is that communism is fundamentally based on the common ownership of property. Dictatorships are not fundamentally based on the denial of Freedom of Expression and National Socialism is not fundamentally based on genocide. Theocracies are not fundamentally based upon denial of freedom of religion, either.

[Bears Armed]

Theocracies are not fundamentally based upon denial of freedom of religion, either.

Go to any RL nation that's run strictly according to the Muslims' 'sharia' law, and try converting some of the local Muslims to any other religion: Even if that faith is on the [restricted] list of religions "of the Book" whose existing members Muslims are supposed to tolerate, trying to convert Muslims to it is legally a capital offence...
There was a man publicly executed in Iran, only a few years ago, for the crime of "apostatising" from Islam to Zoraoastrianism...

[Ardchoille]

Yeah, well, this ain't General, and any extra WA chat we can do in the WA, so let's move it over there, OK? Last drinks, ladeez and gemmun, you want any more, clear off to the shebeen. iLock.