[DRAFT] Democratic Budgeting Convention

[Imperium Anglorum]

Democratic Budgeting Convention
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

---

Believing that (1) member nations spend tax revenues to the extent to which such spending can be justified by governmental authority and (2) taxpayers ought to have the greatest say in the spending decisions of a government because they provide the funds which are expended,

Seeking to prevent other nations, especially if assembled in an international body, from interfering in the spending decisions of other nations and thereby preserve the domestic mandate upon which such spending is based, and

Acting to protect the political freedoms of national taxpayers to direct the spending decisions of their governments in line with the authority which they grant to their governments,

This august World Assembly:

1. Requires that the World Assembly refrain from directing (by percentage or by amount) the domestic spending priorities, decisions, or budgets of member nations;
   
   
2. Encourages member nations, absent any directives to the contrary, to respect the sovereignty of other member nations and refrain from restricting the right of taxpayers to determine the spending decisions of their governments;
   
   
3. Clarifies that clause 2 does not block any further legislation on the topic of nation-to-nation interference in budgeting processes and ought be interpreted as inoperative or non-contradictory should further legislation on the subject covered by clause 2 be passed by this Assembly.

Parsons: We've been trying to something like this in a while...

P: But, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations [proposals which mandate that national governments throw some arbitrary percentage of their budgets towards some idiotic goal], pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government [negligence], and to provide new Guards [resolutions] for their future security"!

Edit 1: Edit in brackets rather than commas in clause 1 to make it clearer.
Edit 2: Added the above edit summary.
Edit 3: Changed the IC stuff at the bottom.
Edit 4: Added the above edit summary.
Edit 5: Clause 2, inserted "absent any directives to the contrary".
Edit 6: Changed list format.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Reserved.

[Bananaistan]

"Clause 2, by using the operative verb encourage, grants member nations the right not to respect the sovereignty of other member nations and the right to restrict the right of taxpayers to determine the spending decisions of their governments. When the WA urges or encourages or requests a member nation to do something or not to something, the WA implicitly grants a member nation the right to not do whatever it is that they are being urged to do or to do whatever it is they are being urged not to do. A future resolution cannot then come along and interfere with this right without being struck down for contradiction. In this light, we see clause 3 as contradictory with clause 2, and optional in effect on the entire assembly.

"However, we support the concept. Many, many times we have seen proposals setting out percentages of either government funds or GDP to be spent on whatever exercises the proposer. It is likely only a matter of time before some naive but politically well connected delegation slips something through the net."

- Ted Hornwood

[Tinfect]

(2) taxpayers have the greatest say in the spending decisions of a government because they provide the funds which are expended,

"This is simply false, Ambassador. The greatest authority regarding State-Expenditure, is the Institution or Personnel tasked with the regulation of such. After a purchase is made, is it still the right of the buyer to direct how the currency formerly in their possession is used? Of course not; it is the right of the current holder of the currency to dictate its usage."

Acting to protect the political freedoms of national taxpayers to direct the spending decisions of their governments in line with the authority which they grant to their governments,

"Which, in non-democratic governments, does not exist in even an in-direct form."

2. Encourages member nations to respect the sovereignty of other member nations

"We fail to see what this has to do with... much of anything, really."

and refrain from restricting the right of taxpayers to determine the spending decisions of their governments;

"Encouraging Member-States to protect a 'right' that does not exist, is quite the strange goal, Ambassador."

3. Clarifies that clause 2 does not block any further legislation on the topic of nation-to-nation interference in budgeting processes and ought be interpreted as inoperative or non-contradictory should further legislation on the subject covered by clause 2 be passed by this Assembly.

"Ambassador, stating a blatant falsehood does not make it true.

At this time, the Imperium does not see any possible benefit arising from the existence of this legislation. Such legislation that would mandate direct alterations to expenditure is scarcely even remotely successful, and few, if any, such proposals have seen vote. Beyond this, the nonsensical and absurd claims within the non-mandatory portions of the text, provide sufficient grounds for the Imperium to oppose the current state of this Draft."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Many, many times we have seen proposals setting out percentages of either government funds or GDP to be spent on whatever exercises the proposer.

OOC: This is the main reason why I proposed this. But Tinfect noted in a telegram exchange that there's an interpretation of the game mechanics rule which would prevent such a requirement (because certain portions of government expenditures are already determined by the game itself). If that is raised into precedent, I don't see any need for legislation on this topic.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: It's a shame people take debates on proposals to TGs! I'd like to see this discussion regarding the game mechanics aspect. In any case, even if such mandates are breaches of the game mechanics rule, this does not preclude a resolution on the topic.

[Tinfect]

OOC: It's a shame people take debates on proposals to TGs! I'd like to see this discussion regarding the game mechanics aspect. In any case, even if such mandates are breaches of the game mechanics rule, this does not preclude a resolution on the topic.

OOC:
It was more of just a single TG exchange*, my response to his clarifying of his intentions with this draft, in response to my IC Statement up there. I'll not pretend to know if IA is okay with sharing TGs around, but the gist of the relevant bit is that there's a Game-Mechanics function regarding government expenditure, resolutions that directly affect this stat, saying it must be/raised by x% or x#, are thus Metagaming Game-Mechanics** violations. It could probably be stated more eloquently by someone with more sleep than I have at the moment, but that's basically it.
*About the size of this post, actually...
**Remember when I mentioned the minimal sleep?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Give me one good reason why Clause One isn't already covered by Clause Eight of GA #17 a.k.a WA General Fund.

Fairburn: Furthermore, Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva, 1st Earl Parsons of Eastminster, 8th Viscount Parsons of Eastminster, 1st Baron Markenshire of Concilium, Knight of the Garter, Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Privy Councillor, Member of Parliament for Those-Across-the-Seas; Proconsul Decimus; Permanent Representative to the World Assembly, give me one good reason why Clause Two isn't already covered by Clause Nine of WA General Fund.

Neville: Finally, give me one good reason why Clause Three is even needed.

Fairburn: Nevertheless, since drafting is a cooperative process, I would like to suggest an alternative draft:

A thing of beauty, isn't it?

OOC: It's a shame people take debates on proposals to TGs! I'd like to see this discussion regarding the game mechanics aspect. In any case, even if such mandates are breaches of the game mechanics rule, this does not preclude a resolution on the topic.

OOC: I would argue that if mandating tax rates is illegal, a resolution forbidding such is utterly useless from a stats perspective. However, I wouldn't mind if such a proposal were drafted from a purely RP perspective, but it'd need something more.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Neville: Give me one good reason why Clause One isn't already covered by Clause Eight of GA #17 a.k.a WA General Fund.

Parsons: (confused) Ummmmm uh... the fact that spending and taxation are not the same thing?

Fairburn: Furthermore, [...] Parsons, [...], give me one good reason why Clause Two isn't already covered by Clause Nine of WA General Fund.

Parsons: (again confused) Ummmm uh... the fact that foreign interference has nothing to do with transparency protocols?

Neville: Finally, give me one good reason why Clause Three is even needed.

OOC: Really, a test. I want to see whether we can write in contradiction-duplication exceptions. It'd be an interesting journey to see where it goes.

---

OOC: It's a shame people take debates on proposals to TGs! I'd like to see this discussion regarding the game mechanics aspect. In any case, even if such mandates are breaches of the game mechanics rule, this does not preclude a resolution on the topic.

OOC:
It was more of just a single TG exchange*, my response to his clarifying of his intentions with this draft, in response to my IC Statement up there. I'll not pretend to know if IA is okay with sharing TGs around, but the gist of the relevant bit is that there's a Game-Mechanics function regarding government expenditure, resolutions that directly affect this stat, saying it must be/raised by x% or x#, are thus Metagaming. It could probably be stated more eloquently by someone with more sleep than I have at the moment, but that's basically it.
*About the size of this post, actually...

OOC: I agree with Tinfect on this matter. I also don't see the need of this proposal should moderators (or some future council) establish precedent in favour of this interpretation of the Game Mechanics rule.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Give me one good reason why Clause One isn't already covered by Clause Eight of GA #17 a.k.a WA General Fund.

Parsons: (confused) Ummmmm uh... the fact that spending and taxation are not the same thing?

Neville: I could have sworn that it originally referred to taxation. Still, I was taught to assume good faith, so I'll chalk this up to a faulty memory.

Fairburn: Furthermore, [...] Parsons, [...], give me one good reason why Clause Two isn't already covered by Clause Nine of WA General Fund.

Parsons: (again confused) Ummmm uh... the fact that foreign interference has nothing to do with transparency protocols?

Fairburn: Half the bleeding clause is about transparency protocols! The other half is already covered by the second WA resolution that was ever passed!

Neville: Finally, give me one good reason why Clause Three is even needed.

OOC: Really, a test. I want to see whether we can write in contradiction-duplication exceptions. It'd be an interesting journey to see where it goes.

OOC: What's the point of rules if we can write in exceptions? Against.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: (again confused) Ummmm uh... the fact that foreign interference has nothing to do with transparency protocols?

Fairburn: Half the bleeding clause is about transparency protocols! The other half is already covered by the second WA resolution that was ever passed!

Parsons: It doesn't speak at all about transparency protocols. If you read the text of the proposal, the words transparency or protocol do not appear in the text. Also, 2 GA speaks about interventions, not subterfuge.

OOC: Really, a test. I want to see whether we can write in contradiction-duplication exceptions. It'd be an interesting journey to see where it goes.

OOC: What's the point of rules if we can write in exceptions? Against.

OOC: The duplication rule is dumb. Writing in exceptions would move towards stopping that rule from being stupid.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Half the bleeding clause is about transparency protocols! The other half is already covered by the second WA resolution that was ever passed!

Parsons: It doesn't speak at all about transparency protocols. If you read the text of the proposal, the words transparency or protocol do not appear in the text.

Fairburn: The word 'abortion' doesn't appear in GA #286 a.k.a Reproductive Freedoms; therefore, the resolution doesn't speak about abortions! I'm sure that GA #17 a.k.a WA General Fund is completely voluntary; after all, it never says it is funded by taxation, merely "donations"!

Also, 2 GA speaks about interventions, not subterfuge.

Fairburn: Show me where this proposal talks about deceit.

OOC: What's the point of rules if we can write in exceptions? Against.

OOC: The duplication rule is dumb. Writing in exceptions would move towards stopping that rule from being stupid.

OOC: I'm sure you won't mind if I draft a proposal with the exact same requirements as this one, then?

[Tinfect]

Fairburn: The word 'abortion' doesn't appear in GA #286 a.k.a Reproductive Freedoms; therefore, the resolution doesn't speak about abortions!

OOC:
Careful, there's more than a few people that have/would make that exact argument.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: The word 'abortion' doesn't appear in GA #286 a.k.a Reproductive Freedoms; therefore, the resolution doesn't speak about abortions!

OOC:
Careful, there's more than a few people that have/would make that exact argument.

OOC: I'm aware of that, and unless you're FT or really advanced PMT, there's no way in which using that argument for the purposes of compliance counts as good faith.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: It doesn't speak at all about transparency protocols. If you read the text of the proposal, the words transparency or protocol do not appear in the text.

Fairburn: The word 'abortion' doesn't appear in GA #286 a.k.a Reproductive Freedoms; therefore, the resolution doesn't speak about abortions! I'm sure that GA #17 a.k.a WA General Fund is completely voluntary; after all, it never says it is funded by taxation, merely "donations"!

PARSONS: This proposal also never speaks about anything that could be interpreted as meaning transparency protocols or anything of the like. Given that you cannot provide any evidence to support your claim, I'm going to ignore it.

Also, 2 GA speaks about interventions, not subterfuge.

Fairburn: Show me where this proposal talks about deceit.

PARSONS: When it says 'refrain from restricting the right of taxpayers to determine the spending decisions of their governments'. Though, that is somewhat unclear. I'll make some clarifications later.

OOC: The duplication rule is dumb. Writing in exceptions would move towards stopping that rule from being stupid.

OOC: I'm sure you won't mind if I draft a proposal with the exact same requirements as this one, then?

OOC: No problem. In fact, I'd be fine if you write something which directly states something contrary to clause 2 as well.

---

OOC: Careful, there's more than a few people that have/would make that exact argument.

OOC: I'm aware of that, and unless you're FT or really advanced PMT, there's no way in which using that argument for the purposes of compliance counts as good faith.

OOC: What compliance? /s

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: The word 'abortion' doesn't appear in GA #286 a.k.a Reproductive Freedoms; therefore, the resolution doesn't speak about abortions! I'm sure that GA #17 a.k.a WA General Fund is completely voluntary; after all, it never says it is funded by taxation, merely "donations"!

PARSONS: This proposal also never speaks about anything that could be interpreted as meaning transparency protocols or anything of the like. Given that you cannot provide any evidence to support your claim, I'm going to ignore it.

Fairburn: So taxpayers can determine the spending decisions of their governments without transparency? If you say so, Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva, 1st Earl Parsons of Eastminster, 8th Viscount Parsons of Eastminster, 1st Baron Markenshire of Concilium, Knight of the Garter, Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Privy Councillor, Member of Parliament for Those-Across-the-Seas; Proconsul Decimus; Permanent Representative to the World Assembly.

Fairburn: Show me where this proposal talks about deceit.

PARSONS: When it says 'refrain from restricting the right of taxpayers to determine the spending decisions of their governments'. Though, that is somewhat unclear. I'll make some clarifications later.

Fairburn: Don't bother. I was arguing that the first half of Clause Two duplicated GA #2, not the second half.

OOC: I'm sure you won't mind if I draft a proposal with the exact same requirements as this one, then?

OOC: No problem. In fact, I'd be fine if you write something which directly states something contrary to clause 2 as well.

OOC: I look forward to doing so tomorrow.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: This proposal also never speaks about anything that could be interpreted as meaning transparency protocols or anything of the like. Given that you cannot provide any evidence to support your claim, I'm going to ignore it.

Fairburn: So taxpayers can determine the spending decisions of their governments without transparency? If you say so, ... Parsons ... .

PARSONS: Yep. They do things like elect representatives. We call them Members of Parliament.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: So taxpayers can determine the spending decisions of their governments without transparency? If you say so, ... Parsons ... .

PARSONS: Yep. They do things like elect representatives. We call them Members of Parliament.

Fairburn: I'm trying to find relevance in what you just said, but all I can hear in my mind is non sequitur.

[Wallenburg]

"It appears that Wallenburg can support this."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Resurrected.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Again resurrected, though it's appearing quite ghoulish by this point.

Parsons walks over to one wing of the Democratic Empire's legation along with a number of the legation staff, who set up a nice conference table with some tea, scones, and other assorted breakfast snacks. He pours a flute of champagne, opens the door, and sends a messenger to announce a meeting to take place in one of the legislative conference rooms scattered around the building.

[Kitzerland]

Whiskers speaks through a mouthful of biscuit crumbs. "While the yummy treatsh are shertainly delishish, we cannot in good faith shupport thish resholushun."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Whiskers speaks through a mouthful of biscuit crumbs. "While the yummy treatsh are shertainly delishish, we cannot in good faith shupport thish resholushun."

Parsons looks at Whiskers and asks, 'Why?'

[Kitzerland]

Whiskers speaks through a mouthful of biscuit crumbs. "While the yummy treatsh are shertainly delishish, we cannot in good faith shupport thish resholushun."

Parsons looks at Whiskers and asks, 'Why?'

"We simply don't believe in limiting the GA's power without purpose. That, and, I really don't like the last two clauses. If the second penultimate clause isn't binding, why include it? What does it do?"

[Grays Harbor]

Overall, we have few objections to this draft. Like many here we have grown weary of ambassadors coming in demanding every nation spend "X" amount on their pet projects, whether it would make sense for our nation or not.

This passage, however, has given us some concern.

taxpayers have the greatest say in the spending decisions of a government because they provide the funds which are expended,

How is this to be accomplished? Polls for every spending bill in Parliament? A referendum for every road repair? Internet petitions for military training supplies? A nationwide contest to determine textbook content?