[DEFEATED] Repeal: Food Welfare Act

[Knootoss]

Are you suggesting that there is a WA military to protect them?


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

[Glen-Rhodes]

Are you suggesting that there is a WA military to protect them?

There doesn't need to be. The World Assembly is fully capable of having security forces. It is incredibly naive to think that the World Assembly would go into a crisis situation without security.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

Indeed, the WA officials would be well protected if there ever were a famine inside their headquarters.


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

[Krioval]

Are you suggesting that there is a WA military to protect them?

There doesn't need to be. The World Assembly is fully capable of having security forces. It is incredibly naive to think that the World Assembly would go into a crisis situation without security.

- Dr. B. Castro

That works...provided that only the WA headquarters needs food aid secured. Also, the WAHQ probably uses mercenaries. Good thing we didn't ban them!

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Glen-Rhodes]

That works...provided that only the WA headquarters needs food aid secured. Also, the WAHQ probably uses mercenaries.

I wasn't saying that the HQ security forces would go with the IFWO. It was an example of World Assembly security in general. On a side note, what makes you think that WAHQ security forces are 'mercenaries?' Where does it say the World Assembly doesn't hire its own security forces? And if they are mercenaries, why is it so impossible that the IFWO has for-hire security?

[Sionis Prioratus]

why is it so impossible that the IFWO has for-hire security?

Because it is NOT on the text?

Yours laughing,

[Krioval]

I wasn't saying that the HQ security forces would go with the IFWO.

...in that it was specified in the resolution text. As Your Excellency is aware, judging by lengthy legality critiques, the text can be everything.

It was an example of World Assembly security in general. On a side note, what makes you think that WAHQ security forces are 'mercenaries?' Where does it say the World Assembly doesn't hire its own security forces? And if they are mercenaries, why is it so impossible that the IFWO has for-hire security?

Well, I'm just going by the presumption that there are security forces, getting paid by the WA, who are not citizens of the WA - since the WA cannot have citizens. Thus, mercenaries. As for the IFWO, I do not see text authorizing them to hire security forces, and the WA explicitly does not have such forces except for, as Your Excellency has demonstrated, very narrow roles.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Monikian WA Mission]

Perhaps with the repeal there might be room for the creation of a procedure for the government of nations undergoing a famine to request aid from member nations. Such aid can be protected by the military forces of the aiding nation, and both governments can assure that the food will get where it is needed and not end up on the stolen goods market.

... This makes no sense whatsoever. You are asserting that goods are being stolen in the case of IFWO. You are now saying that if we just transfer the responsibility to member states, everything will be fine and dandy. Apparently, you're assuming that the IFWO enters into a crisis situation with nothing but a minivan of food. This is false. Your argument is nonsensical.

- Dr. B. Castro

"Dr. Castro what is false and nonsensical is that you assume that the WA has some sort of military protection, which it cannot have. We would assume that having armed guards either employed by the the WA or hired contractors (IE Mercenaries) would constitute a WA military force, which as you should know by now is illegal.

"Further, if the responsibility to transfer food stuffs and food aid were transfered to the member nations there would be every reason for the donating nation to desire that the need for food aid to end by establishing domestic agriculture. The IFWO not only doesn't do this, but perhaps has no desire to.

"Finally member states have military and police forces to protect the shipments...the WA doesn't and cant. As for the aided nation I'm sure their military in situations such as wars and famines have more important things to do--like maintaining order."

[Glen-Rhodes]

As for the IFWO, I do not see text authorizing them to hire security forces...

There doesn't need to be text specifically authorizing security. There's no text specifically authorizing the use of vehicles or the construction of buildings to house IFWO food aid. It's implicit within the mandate to coordinate and provide food aid to people in crises. If security is necessary, it is provided.

- Dr. B. Castro

[NERVUN]

A note from the bench here: There was a legality question about this proposal submitted to the legal office. After review, this proposal has been ruled to be fully legal.

[Monikian WA Mission]

There doesn't need to be text specifically authorizing security. There's no text specifically authorizing the use of vehicles or the construction of buildings to house IFWO food aid. It's implicit within the mandate to coordinate and provide food aid to people in crises. If security is necessary, it is provided.

- Dr. B. Castro

"And see Dr. Castro that is where you are wrong. Security forces could be construed as military or police forces unless they are stipulated to be otherwise, such as the OMB's security units. Without a military or police the WA can essentially secure nothing unless it is authorized to do so in the resolution in question. As it was not it cannot be implied as could be vehicles or buildings.

"As there are no provisions for security in the FWA it cannot be implied, and even if it were then who would be doing this security? WA mercenaries?"

[Glen-Rhodes]

And see Dr. Castro that is where you are wrong. Security forces could be construed as military or police forces unless they are stipulated to be otherwise, such as the OMB's security units.

No, they cannot, considering the World Assembly is prohibited from having military or police forces.

Without a military or police the WA can essentially secure nothing unless it is authorized to do so in the resolution in question.

And this precedent comes from somewhere official, right? You didn't just make it up on the spot?

- Dr. B. Castro

A note from the bench here: There was a legality question about this proposal submitted to the legal office. After review, this proposal has been ruled to be fully legal.

Can you expand on that, please? The bulk of this proposal is based on complaints about the proposal that can not logically exist.

[Monikian WA Mission]

No, they cannot, considering the World Assembly is prohibited from having military or police forces.

"That is one of the most ridiculous things that has come out of your mouth Doctor. And you've said plenty of ridiculous things. A security force would need to be armed, even if it is with a simple club. As such any security force employed by the WA could be considered a military force unless it was directly called for by the governing resolution. An example would be the OMB's security forces which have been explicitly stipulated in GA Res.8."

And this precedent comes from somewhere official, right? You didn't just make it up on the spot?

"No, this precedent is somewhere offical. I refer again to GA Res. 8. Lets read the relevant portion of the text of that Resolution shall we?

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management (OBM), the duties of which shall entail:
- locating suitable real estate for the establishment of international headquarters for the NationStates World Assembly
- constructing and maintaining the facilities necessary to house these headquarters
- furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it

"As you can see the OMB is charged by the resolution which created it the responsibility of furnishing the necessary security to protect WAHQ Complex and all those who use the WAHQ Complex.

"Otherwise the WA rules against having a military/police force would apply. As the FWA does not provide for furnishing security of food aid transport/distribution none can be said to exist.

"You see Doctor, unlike you I make the determinations of legality on the basis of established precedent and established WA Rules and Secretariat Rulings. Your assumption that food aid transports and distributions are secured by some WA force, not provided for in the FWA itself, is merely an assumption. An assumption that as far as I can tell, you pulled straight from your own defecation orifice."

[Glen-Rhodes]

... As such any security force employed by the WA could be considered a military force unless it was directly called for by the governing resolution.

Where the hell did you get that idea? A security force is a military force, unless it's not called a military force by a resolution? I'm sure this wildly new interpretation of a fairly entrenched legal doctrine would be a wonderful surprise to those of us who find the rule nonsense. Now all we have to do is call peace-keeping forces 'security,' and they won't be military!

[Monikian WA Mission]

A security force is a military force, unless it's not called a military force by a resolution?

"That would be the case for very specific types of legislation.

I'm sure this wildly new interpretation of a fairly entrenched legal doctrine would be a wonderful surprise to those of us who find the rule nonsense.

"Then feel free to challenge that rule. Others more impressive than you have attempted to change it and have failed.

Now all we have to do is call peace-keeping forces 'security,' and they won't be military!

"Nothing has ever stopped member states from doing peacekeeping. Its the WA itself that can't do the peacekeeping. I would have expected you to have known this by now Doctor...but I suppose such expectations are too great for one of your limited intelligence."

[Scandavian States]

OOC: You lost your credibility for me when you declared Keynesian economics insane.

[ANY economic model that puts forth large-scale government interventionism as a solution IS insane. First, because governments themselves operate on a Twilight Zone version of a free market, wherein everything that is true about the free market in the private sector is not true in government (not surprising, since government is dependent on various taxes taken from private individuals and businesses for revenue). Second, any kind of government intervention makes the market more opaque than necessary, thereby increasing the risk of investment in any private enterprise because looming failures are not as apparent.]

[Knootoss]

This certifiably legal proposal is now in queue!

[Monikian WA Mission]

This certifiably legal proposal is now in queue!

"Excellent, you can count on the Monikians voting for it."

[NERVUN]

A note from the bench here: There was a legality question about this proposal submitted to the legal office. After review, this proposal has been ruled to be fully legal.

Can you expand on that, please? The bulk of this proposal is based on complaints about the proposal that can not logically exist.

The long and short of it is that the proposal was changed in accordance with our original ruling that stating that X happened cannot be done because we have no way of knowing that X did indeed happen. However, the new proposal states that because of how the original was written, X MAY happen. This is ok, and a lot of repeals are based on this notion. It's therefore up to the arguments of the respective ambassadors about if X may or may not actually happen.

[Unibot II]

Can you expand on that, please? The bulk of this proposal is based on complaints about the proposal that can not logically exist.

The long and short of it is that the proposal was changed in accordance with our original ruling that stating that X happened cannot be done because we have no way of knowing that X did indeed happen. However, the new proposal states that because of how the original was written, X MAY happen. This is ok, and a lot of repeals are based on this notion. It's therefore up to the arguments of the respective ambassadors about if X may or may not actually happen.

I was tough on Knoot but only because I love him. Thanks for doing the ruling.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's therefore up to the arguments of the respective ambassadors about if X may or may not actually happen.

So where does this leave the Honest Mistakes rule? Half of this proposal actually cannot logically happen. Not as in it's my political opinion that it can't happen, but that it actually cannot happen. It's like somebody submitting a repeal of WA General Fund with the argument that it may result in GAO thugs stealing money from your nation to fund an international human trafficking ring. I mean, come on -- the repeal says that food aid would be offset by tariffs, even when tariffs are actually banned by the resolution.

[Knootoss]

OOC: The common opinion seems to be that the things I describe in this resolution are perfectly plausible, Glen-Rhodes. And for starters your resolution speaks about a reduction in tariffs to be overseen by a committee, not their abolishment, or the elimination of subsidies. It would really look much better if you'd actually argue your points, rather than just trying to destroy proposals through litigation on points of grammar.

[Glen-Rhodes]

And for starters your resolution speaks about a reduction in tariffs to be overseen by a committee, not their abolishment, or the elimination of subsidies.

The proposal actually covers all protectionist devices, not just tariffs. And it does remove them if they harm international food trade. Let's not forgot that your proposal was deleted because it duplicated the Food Welfare Act. You are claiming here that tariffs and subsidies would 'hollow out the agricultural sectors of recipient nations.' That sounds a lot to me like harming trade.

[Knootoss]

OOC: That you, in a way that you admitted was entirely inadequate, tried to address the issue of trade does not change the fact that it was, in fact, addressed insufficiently. The proposal's been ruled legal. Time for you to move on.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: That you, in a way that you admitted was entirely inadequate, tried to address the issue of trade does not change the fact that it was, in fact, addressed insufficiently. The proposal's been ruled legal. Time for you to move on.

I've never said that the Food Welfare Act addressed trade sufficiently. Your repeal doesn't address that, however. It's wholly an attempt to spread disinformation.