[DRAFT] Fun For Funding

[Ethel mermania]

It is possible for a governmental body to set up a gambling agency that does not make money. In that case would the proposal be legal?

How woulld you know it was going to go broke? If someone had to RP the thing losing money, then no. You couldn't have a WA resolution that would depend for its legality on RP that happened after the resolution passed. (I'm going cross-eyed just thinking about it.)

I was not quite going that way, I was more thinking that since it is not necessarily a guarantee that a state owned gambling enterprise will turn a profit, would the WA then be able to sanction it?

(but it is mind boggling that in an industry were New york state sets the odds, New york state still loses money, If i had not seen it RL, I would not even argue that was possible in a such a diverse place as the nationstates multiverse)

[Knootoss]

*The black-cloaked Emergency Legislator swoops into the Assembly*

"By the power vested in me by the unavoidably absent and sorely missed Ms Gratwick, I hereby make it an offence in all WA member nations to gamble on WA legislative outcomes."

*eyes Ethel Mermanian drones sourly, winks at Defenestrator operators, whispers*

"You can set it for multiple subjects, can't you?"

Does this emergency legal edict actually have MODly force, infallibly pronounced by the Gnomes That Be? If so, it should surely be added to the Hackian laws to prevent future confusion! And also, it would be nice to be immortalised in a Hackian By-Law specifically to block this draft.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

But doesn't every resolution that creates an agency to do something "create a new function for the WA"?

No. GH's proposal, in the shape it's been kicked into, is the WA providing a service for member nations, whether or not it makes a profit. "WA --> service to nations" is already part of other resolutions, such as the International Library and many of the advise/organise/conciliate/arbitrate committees.

Knootoss's is the WA setting out purely to make a profit. If it doesn't make a profit, there's no point in having the proposal. The WA becomes an international corporate entity in competition with other private, national or international corporate entities on which, in other resolutions, it may have to legislate. That puts WA neutrality at risk (eg in making decisions that affect its competitors).

A nation's government could do it, because NS nations can choose their government style, even become a Jennifer Government-type corporate state. But the WA can't, because it's made up of many often conflicting styles, among which it's supposed to stay neutral.

OOC: Hmm. I actually like your argument a lot, Ardchoille. Although it seems to be inspired more by a sense of decency, ethics and commitment to democratic ideals than any desire to keep the World Assembly a neutral entity. Having read Jennifer Government, Knootian capitalism and the Order of the Invisible Hand religion actually draw on some of it's ideas. Knootoss isn't blatantly obvious about it, though, most of the time. Anyway, I'd love to know your answer to the above answer (about the emergency by-law) because the resolution might be redrafted so as to be legal. Perhaps something like this:

Fun For Funding
Category: Gambling
Legalise/Outlaw: Legalise

The World Assembly,

SEIZED of the need to generate revenue for World Assembly operations;

BELIEVING that gambling can be a fun, profitable way of enhancing World Assembly revenues;

PERMITS all citizens of World Assembly nations to participate in parimutuel betting games that highlight themes relevant to World Assembly operations, including but not limited to:
a) The outcome of General Assembly and Security Council votes;
b) The number of public resignations that acceptance of a particular World Assembly resolution will trigger;
c) Whether a draft resolution will be deemed illegal by the World Assembly secretariat;

MANDATES that gambling operators contribute 0,5% of profits made in such parimutuel betting games to the "Fun For Funding Fund"

RESOLVES that revenues from the the "Fun For Funding Fund" will be used to contribute to World Assembly operations.

[Embolalia]

I suppose, for a gambling proposal, this isn't too outrageous. At least, it's not outrageous on NatSov grounds. Perhaps, if we think of it as regulating the existing market of WA gambling, rather than creating it, it will seem less like a pure money grab...

(but it is mind boggling that in an industry were New york state sets the odds, New york state still loses money, If i had not seen it RL, I would not even argue that was possible in a such a diverse place as the nationstates multiverse)

OOC: You must not be familiar with New York State. That government can lose money on anything, no matter how profitable. You hand them a trillion dollars cash, they'd somehow turn it into a 3 trillion dollar debt. Maybe they'd use it to build a shrine to Joe Bruno...

[Knootoss]

I suppose, for a gambling proposal, this isn't too outrageous. At least, it's not outrageous on NatSov grounds. Perhaps, if we think of it as regulating the existing market of WA gambling, rather than creating it, it will seem less like a pure money grab...

Indeed. I am all for using noble-sounding language to further emphasise the inherent goodness and necessity of what the resolution does, and am open to suggestions.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Knootoss]

OOC: I'd appreciate a legality ruling on the new wording, if that is possible?

[Ardchoille]

MANDATES that gambling operators contribute 0,5% of profits made in such parimutuel betting games to the "Fun For Funding Fund"

Illegal. WA directly taxing individual citizens.

[Knootoss]

Doesn't the Ethics in International Trade resolution not also take money directly from businesses?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Doesn't the Ethics in International Trade resolution not also take money directly from businesses?

Businesses are not 'citizens or residents,' as far the World Assembly is concerned. The World Assembly simply cannot tax citizens directly. We can tax businesses and we can issue tariffs (since that is a tax levied on a good, rather than a person), but we can't force citizens to pay a tax directly.

I think the problem here is using 'gambling operators.' You're directly taxing a person. If you change it to 'gambling operations,' it would probably be legal.

[Ardchoille]

Knoot, if you're actually serious -- I can't see any reason why the WA can't declare a specific kind of gambling legal. But don't have the WA running the gambling.

On the idea of giving funds, though: the Gambling category is one of the Yes/No categories. All it does is ban or legalise. A tax is an extra function.

Note, a successful "legalise" resolution doesn't mean that every WA member must have that sort of gambling in their nation. It does mean that they can't declare that sort of gambling illegal.

Also, Hack pointed out the other day that the effects of the Yes/No categories orbit around significant/strong. This means you should watch your phrasing. You can't just "recommend" casinos, for example, because the effect of the category would fully legalise them.

On another matter ...

OOC: Hmm. I actually like your argument a lot, Ardchoille. Although it seems to be inspired more by a sense of decency, ethics and commitment to democratic ideals than any desire to keep the World Assembly a neutral entity.

Thanks a heap, mate. Just look what you've done:

TO: Member No 0607/au

KNOW BY THESE PRESENTS THAT

You are required to attend at the usual place at the usual time in order to answer charges of Letting the Side Down and Unprofessional Conduct, in that you did

(a) behave in such a manner as to give members of the Unmodly the impression that an action by you may in some fashion have been prompted by "a sense of decency, ethics and commitment to democratic ideals";

(b) fail to immediately respond to the public posting of this impression by imposing a penalty of unparalleled savagery;

(c) Seriously Goof thereby.

NOTE: Wear something washable.

[Ethel mermania]

I suppose, for a gambling proposal, this isn't too outrageous. At least, it's not outrageous on NatSov grounds. Perhaps, if we think of it as regulating the existing market of WA gambling, rather than creating it, it will seem less like a pure money grab...

(but it is mind boggling that in an industry were New york state sets the odds, New york state still loses money, If i had not seen it RL, I would not even argue that was possible in a such a diverse place as the nationstates multiverse)

OOC: You must not be familiar with New York State. That government can lose money on anything, no matter how profitable. You hand them a trillion dollars cash, they'd somehow turn it into a 3 trillion dollar debt. Maybe they'd use it to build a shrine to Joe Bruno...

Next to the yet to be built sheldon silver center at the still standing but should have been down 10 years ago duetsche bank building?

The nameless drones are excited

"We think that is the perfect location for the WA book operation".

[Nova Caesar]

Also, stating gambling is fun runs the risk of losing the votes of the about-33% of the WA which has banned gambling.

Yes, but it's not to say all member counties must allow gambling. Merely, if you want to participate in this type of gambling, head on down to your nation's WA office.


Our nation not only allows gambling, but contains Atlantic City and the powerful mayor there has urged us to keep out of the WA. His voice grows louder at the thought of competition this proposal will give way. Despite his best efforts, we may yet rejoin.