PASSED: International Competition Law

[Flibbleites]

And, so far, it is passing. Will this resolution strike the other null and void?

How could it, it's not a repeal of National Economic Freedoms.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Teaberry]

I have been instructed to lodge an "Against" vote with the observation that this resolution would deeply and irrevocably conflict with Resolution 68, which has passed and entered law.

Resolution 68 needs to be repealed before this resolution is passed, otherwise the conflict between the two would mean that international trade is all but impossible. This is not the intent of the resolution, yet it would be the effect.

While Teaberry does indeed applaud the resolution, its authorship and its intent, we note with dismay that it is incompatible with established international law. The resolution, as it were, is illegal.

[Southron Nation]

this legislation smacks of collectivism and the Southron Nation will NOT stand for it. we value individualism. free minds, free markets, and free men. monopolies only exist within the borders of the Southron Nation when they provide satisfactory services to the consumer. they achieve consumer satisfaction for but a limited time as the consumer is voracious. desires are never satiated. consumer demands are constantly swaying this way and that. no legislation can account for consumer preferences. we are not interested in dictating to our citizens, especially the entrepreneurs this legislation targets, which corporations the gov't considers safe. gov't is ever considerate of only the most gracious of special interests. even the stubborn Southron gov't cannot be trusted to resist the temptation of mercantilism and protectionism. free market capitalism is the ONLY economic system in which the people can be assured their freedom.

[The Isle of Biscay]

Honored Delegates,

Please forgive me for not reading the entire debate and being 100% clear of the details of the proposal, as I do have a query...

The Isle of Biscay would like to know how a trade embargo would fit into the equation, and of the impacts this resolution would have on trade embargoes, particularly of embargoes placed on nations that would trade to the benefit of enemies of another nation or group of nations. Would such embargoes, particularly those that target trades that are a direct benefit to war efforts, be considered by the ITA as collusion and anti-competitive?

The people of the Isle of Biscay would like clarification regarding this important issue.

[Carraba]

Get your hands off my free market!

[Glen-Rhodes]

I have been instructed to lodge an "Against" vote with the observation that this resolution would deeply and irrevocably conflict with Resolution 68, which has passed and entered law.

Resolution 68 needs to be repealed before this resolution is passed, otherwise the conflict between the two would mean that international trade is all but impossible. This is not the intent of the resolution, yet it would be the effect.

While Teaberry does indeed applaud the resolution, its authorship and its intent, we note with dismay that it is incompatible with established international law. The resolution, as it were, is illegal.

I can assure both of you that ICL is not in conflict with NEF. National Economic Freedoms only restricts the World Assembly from generally 'restricting' commerce. Specific restrictions or regulations are allowed. (OOC: See legality decisions here and here.)

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Greenlandic People]

By the instruction of the Senate of Lavinium, I hereby cast my region's vote against this piece of legislation.

Yours,

Sigismund Ibsen,
World Assembly Delegate of Lavinium

[Solskjaer20]

I find that this resolution infringes on my nations right of sovereignty. Our glorious country may or may not wish to legislate on this matter at our own discretion, and therefore find it insulting that the World Assembly has attempted to take matters into it's own hands. This World Assembly is not, and never should be, a World Government.

Yours Angrily,

R.A.
Supreme Overlord of International Affairs

[Threlizdun]

A large percentage of nations in nationstates, are in fact Communist or Socialist. Outlawing the ability for governments to have any contrl over the corporations or buisnesses on any level, is essentially forcing every WA nation out there to be capitalist. Several of my fellow region members and I are still, only just recovering from one of the previous resolutions that forced free enterprise. This law, if passed, would destroy the freedom given to gameplayers to choose their economy as they see fit. I understand the purpose of the WA when they are passing laws to protect the environment and enrich citizens lives, but the International Competition Law is down right unfair. In the name of fellow players choice, put an end to this atrocity!

[Mathematania]

The "International Competition Law" is little more than a mandate for capitalism. As capitalism readily admits itself to be founded on monetized exploitation with an atomic structure whose particles are mere mathematized resources instead of true people and their natural environment, it is a fundamentally flawed system that should be resisted in every way.

Respecting the freedom of all nations to engage in whatever economic systems their people choose, capitalism should not be subject to international ban, however neither should it be made an international mandate. Hence, no international law that assumes the universal acceptance of capitalism has any standing.

The "International Competition Law" assumes that all nations are formed of businesses competing on a for profit basis. Such is not the case in Mathematania, nor is it the case in many other of the world's nations, either. Mathematania would like to point out that world policy formulated by myopic, ethnocentric ideologues is by nature imperialism, which cannot be tolerated.

Mathematania would like to go on record as supporting the existence of many centrally regulated, collective industries operated entirely by and for the people of the world in such manner as to provide equally for all the world's people with all returns from operating the industries reinvested in the system, and that no one working the industries in any capacity whatsoever be compensated any better than the single global standard for all workers at all levels. Examples of such industries that Mathematania would insist be subject to immediate conversion are the agriculture, health, education, energy, housing, clothing, and transportation industries.

Mathematania would like to further state that we find any law assuming that competition of any type has inherent value to be offense, vulgar, atavistic, inherently destructive, and de-evolutionary. The world's capitalist countries should be respectful of those who are not so inclined and keep their flawed economic theory to themselves.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If this is capitalist propaganda, then I readily vote against it, also!

....

Wait...

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Flibbleites]

A large percentage of nations in nationstates, are in fact Communist or Socialist. Outlawing the ability for governments to have any contrl over the corporations or buisnesses on any level, is essentially forcing every WA nation out there to be capitalist. Several of my fellow region members and I are still, only just recovering from one of the previous resolutions that forced free enterprise. This law, if passed, would destroy the freedom given to gameplayers to choose their economy as they see fit. I understand the purpose of the WA when they are passing laws to protect the environment and enrich citizens lives, but the International Competition Law is down right unfair. In the name of fellow players choice, put an end to this atrocity!

I can assure you that this in no way, shape or form will prevent you from being Socialist or Communist. Simply because if this did ban either of those it would be illegal due to the "No Idealogical bans" rule.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Scott Tree]

I am disturbed by the last part of this document as written below:

INVESTIGATE and approve or deny international business mergers, ensuring that such mergers are not acts of monopolization or may unintentionally prevent competition;

SUGGEST the dissolution of businesses to national governments

Would some one please explain to me what this means?
A: It should be up to the two countries involved in the merger not the international community.
B. some industries a vital to national security and our nation not this body will decide to dissolution of businesses to our national government.

(OOC) Were do you guy get this? As an econ-finance major half of what you come up with drives me crazy.

[Glen-Rhodes]

A: It should be up to the two countries involved in the merger not the international community.

I disagree, but there's no much to argue here. One either thinks the ITA should oversee international mergers or that the ITA shouldn't oversee them.

B. some industries a vital to national security and our nation not this body will decide to dissolution of businesses to our national government.

The ITA can merely suggest that nations dissolve anti-competitive businesses. It is up to national government to decide if they will comply with that suggestion.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

(OOC) Were do you guy get this? As an econ-finance major half of what you come up with drives me crazy.

(OOC: And I'm no Milton Friedman and the real world doesn't have a 3500 character limit.)

[Brainstemm]

I am disturbed by the last part of this document as written below:

INVESTIGATE and approve or deny international business mergers, ensuring that such mergers are not acts of monopolization or may unintentionally prevent competition;

SUGGEST the dissolution of businesses to national governments

Would some one please explain to me what this means?
A: It should be up to the two countries involved in the merger not the international community.
B. some industries a vital to national security and our nation not this body will decide to dissolution of businesses to our national government.

(OOC) Were do you guy get this? As an econ-finance major half of what you come up with drives me crazy.

I agree. While there may be many good reasons as to why the ITA should play a major role in overseeing international trade agreements, in the end it can easily be controlled by national governments as to whether one large conglomerate is affecting its citizens free choice (or not / lack of) and so trade agreements may be as powerful or high-placed as is demanded - they can only function in agreeing states, of which there would be very few.

However, I will say this: an unreasonable control of resources (and here I am referring to a means of supply e.g. only one computer company controlling all silicon reserves) should be monitored and prohibited by the WA in an attempt to maintain the ability of one nation to compete with all others as they see fit. At the same time this universal "spreading" of good fortune cannot lead to promoting the "little guy" in every instance.

In summary, I would recommend a change in direction for this piece of legislation, changing its function to allow free access to goods where free companies are concerned, rather than restricting the growth and changes of markets.

[Scott Tree]

I disagree, but there's no much to argue here. One either thinks the ITA should oversee international mergers or that the ITA shouldn't oversee them.

What arguments can you make to have a merger supported by both national governments and then denied by the international community? This is crazy this planet has enough nations seeking revenge on other nations. One group of nations could call off the merger just to force the two enemy nations to suffer economically. Rival nations will use this organization to wage war with opposing nations and do it legally. Rich nations will stop poor nations from ending trade relations and force them into mergers to gobble up entire industries. Rich nations then turn on each other and use this organization to force mergers that are not wanted for economic benefit at the expanse of other nations. All you are doing is trusting children that call them selves presidents, ministers, lords, and kings to enjoy the fact there are no real parents to tell them to play far on the playground earth. Nations need to be independent and make the decisions for themselves and do what is right for its citizens.

(OOC)I spent an entire semester on international trade. Even my teacher believes this is crazy.

[Glen-Rhodes]

What arguments can you make to have a merger supported by both national governments and then denied by the international community?

I trust the World Assembly's mechanisms more than I do national governments, namely.

This is crazy this planet has enough nations seeking revenge on other nations. One group of nations could call off the merger just to force the two enemy nations to suffer economically. Rival nations will use this organization to wage war with opposing nations and do it legally. Rich nations will stop poor nations from ending trade relations and force them into mergers to gobble up entire industries. Rich nations then turn on each other and use this organization to force mergers that are not wanted for economic benefit at the expanse of other nations. All you are doing is trusting children that call them selves presidents, ministers, lords, and kings to enjoy the fact there are no real parents to tell them to play far on the playground earth. Nations need to be independent and make the decisions for themselves and do what is right for its citizens.

Nations themselves have no control over the ITA's decisions, so I don't see any of this happening as a result of this resolution passing. I do not think Your Excellency understands how WA committees function. (OOC: WA committees are run by mystical gnomes and are incorruptible by and neutral to politics. Mostly, anyways.)

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

(OOC)I spent an entire semester on international trade. Even my teacher believes this is crazy.

(OOC: If only NS was the real world... Things function wildly different here, if you haven't noticed. Do you think the Food Welfare Act would actually work in the real world, for example? Or any other WA resolutions? Because they most likely would not... This is a game. I don't need an MA in macroeconomics to write a Free Trade resolution; a Free Trade resolution doesn't need to be able to translate directly into the real world.

[Flibbleites]

(OOC: And I'm no Milton Friedman and the real world doesn't have a 3500 character limit.)

OOC: Maybe it needs one, it would put a stop to 100 page bills that no one has time to read let alone understand.

[Tokharia B]

In my view the resolution should be rejected because monopoly capitalism constitutes a progress with respect to free-market capitalism. Planning is possible at a higher precision, given that competitors, an unkown contribution to the system, are eliminated. Research and development become less redundant and thereby more efficient.

Also, the resolution interferes with the operation of corporations that are owned by several governments with the purpose of fixing adequate prices and planning production and distribution on an international level.

[Threlizdun]

What arguments can you make to have a merger supported by both national governments and then denied by the international community?

I trust the World Assembly's mechanisms more than I do national governments, namely.

This is crazy this planet has enough nations seeking revenge on other nations. One group of nations could call off the merger just to force the two enemy nations to suffer economically. Rival nations will use this organization to wage war with opposing nations and do it legally. Rich nations will stop poor nations from ending trade relations and force them into mergers to gobble up entire industries. Rich nations then turn on each other and use this organization to force mergers that are not wanted for economic benefit at the expanse of other nations. All you are doing is trusting children that call them selves presidents, ministers, lords, and kings to enjoy the fact there are no real parents to tell them to play far on the playground earth. Nations need to be independent and make the decisions for themselves and do what is right for its citizens.

Nations themselves have no control over the ITA's decisions, so I don't see any of this happening as a result of this resolution passing. I do not think Your Excellency understands how WA committees function. (OOC: WA committees are run by mystical gnomes and are incorruptible by and neutral to politics. Mostly, anyways.)

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

(OOC)I spent an entire semester on international trade. Even my teacher believes this is crazy.

(OOC: If only NS was the real world... Things function wildly different here, if you haven't noticed. Do you think the Food Welfare Act would actually work in the real world, for example? Or any other WA resolutions? Because they most likely would not... This is a game. I don't need an MA in macroeconomics to write a Free Trade resolution; a Free Trade resolution doesn't need to be able to translate directly into the real world.

You're argueing that this is a game, and this policy wouldn't work in the real world, and that you trust the WA entirely, and do not trust that WE can handle OUR OWN economy! The fact that this is a game is what should help us respect others abilities to do as they please! What good can this possibly accomplish? How will this help you? Why do you want to do this? You are destroying our freedom to run our own nations and you're admitting it! How can anyone possibly stand for this? What do you want next? All nations must follow America's policies? All nations must respect your superiority, BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT WE CAN'T HANDLE OURSELVES? LET US RUN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!! THAT IS WHAT THIS GAME IS ABOUT!!!

[Glen-Rhodes]

You're argueing that this is a game, and this policy wouldn't work in the real world, and that you trust the WA entirely, and do not trust that WE can handle OUR OWN economy! The fact that this is a game is what should help us respect others abilities to do as they please! What good can this possibly accomplish? How will this help you? Why do you want to do this? You are destroying our freedom to run our own nations and you're admitting it! How can anyone possibly stand for this? What do you want next? All nations must follow America's policies? All nations must respect your superiority, BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT WE CAN'T HANDLE OURSELVES? LET US RUN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!! THAT IS WHAT THIS GAME IS ABOUT!!!

OOC: Eh, I hate it when people respond IC to OOC comments... or OOC to IC comments... I can't really tell.

Anyways. Glen-Rhodes believes in international federalism. Dr. B views in the WA as a world government. Not that ICL is really indicative of that; it doesn't take away any sovereign rights at all. The international economy is not any single nation's economy. So, when you say "... WE can handle OUR OWN economy", I don't think you understand what ICL actually does.

In the end, if you don't like that the WA regulates your government, then resign. The WA isn't going to stop its regulations any time soon.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Also, the resolution interferes with the operation of corporations that are owned by several governments with the purpose of fixing adequate prices and planning production and distribution on an international level.

This resolution does not affect government monopolies.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[The Palentine]

As I don't really trust Dr. Castro's motives when it comes to free trade, especially given his rantings in the past, the Palentine is voting no. Of course, I could be wrong, and Dr. Castro has finally embraced the dark side....but I doubt it.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[The Altani Federation]

The Altani Federation will be voting against this measure. We find it ironic that a resolution that talks about limiting "anti-competitive practices" itself seeks to impose anti-competitive practices upon private businesses, often against the desires of both the entrepreneurs behind those businesses and the nations they hail from. By hindering the natural competition which is part of the business world, this measure only fosters weakness by propping up those who cannot compete. The truly intrepid will find a way to take down larger and more powerful foes without the help of the WA. We do not seek to reward weakness, so this is quite unsuitable as far as we're concerned.

-Nikolai Nagashybyuly, Ambassador

[Krioval]

After careful deliberations, the Krioval Senate has decided, by a vote of 308-295 (13 abstentions) to vote in opposition to this resolution. Among the reasons for the defectors around the center was the lack of monitoring of government monopolies in addition to the conflict of ideals between this legislation and National Economic Freedoms. It is not necessarily the opinion of the Imperial Chiefdom that this resolution critically undermines NEF, but we do not believe, at this time, that this legislation sufficiently advances economic freedoms and fairness to vote in favor.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval