NATION

PASSWORD

PASSED: National Economic Freedoms

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Krioval
Minister
 
Posts: 2458
Founded: Jan 24, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Krioval » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:58 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Well, no, not if the apple was previously "placed into the Commons". It wouldn't be seizing it from any owner, since property within the Commons is not owned by anybody. The Commons isn't some foreign, obscure invention, Ambassador Tyvok, and perhaps you should take some time to do a little research.


And exactly how do you propose to do that without taking it away? If you don't take it, Doctor Castro, it amounts to all of a flowery declaration, much like Senate Resolution 1776 that passed in Krioval, placing the entirety of the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes into the commons. Thus, at some point, either somebody is going to take possession of the property or they aren't. If they do, it's property seizure. If they don't, then it's a declaration of nothingness. So which is it, then?

Let's assume that a nation is seeking to move from a 'private' system to socialism. They have robust private industries, but those industries have done a poor job of providing to everybody, so the government wants to step in and provide those services for free. Take healthcare, for example. Private insurance and for-profit healthcare need to be eradicated, so that the government is able to dictate the costs of this essential service. Under this resolution, they would have to buy each and every insurance provider, hospital, doctor's office, etc. The cost is enormous and will never be recuperated. Now repeat this for every essential industry that any given socialist state usually nationalizes. It's impossible to pay for this, without driving the nation into economic turmoil. So, troves of new socialist states are essentially killed before they're born, not because of any conceived inefficiency with socialism itself, but because this resolution makes the costs impossibly high. If anything, the World Assembly should now be compensating fledgling socialist states, since you've basically robbed them of their economic freedom of self-determination.


Can we also assume that the government isn't comprised of idiots lacking all economic perspective while we're at it? All right, then. Rather than "eradicat[ing]" all private healthcare industry with a single stroke of the pen, perhaps the government should consider regulating the industry first? Maybe they could create a competitor to private industry? Perhaps the government could content itself with buying out only the largest players in the healthcare industry, and not worry about the local doctor's offices? This entire debate is predicated on people's abilities, including those in a government, to think for more than ten seconds about how to run an economy. Are you actually suggesting, Doctor Castro, that Krioval should shed tears over the most bumbling efforts to nationalize industry when a group of graduate students could do it more efficiently and with less misery for everybody involved? The costs are perfectly reasonable when considering any transition short of starting from laissez-faire capitalism and moving immediately toward total collectivism, wherein personal residences and the corner store are administered by the state, which occurs so rarely that the Imperial Chiefdom is unable to describe any such transition that occurs outside of period of war.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

User avatar
New Leicestershire
Attaché
 
Posts: 96
Founded: Mar 30, 2007
Capitalist Paradise

Postby New Leicestershire » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:41 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:So says Ambassador Watts, by his own independent interpretation. Equally valid, but not subscribed to by Glen-Rhodes.


Yes well, I take comfort in the fact that my interpretation is at least based in reality.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2453
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:12 am

I rise today to cast support this measure, as it is the belief of the USP that Free Trade is a great step in establishing peace and should be promoted when ever possible.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador ~ USP.
The Unified States Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlett - President

Ideological Bulwark #235

User avatar
Krioval
Minister
 
Posts: 2458
Founded: Jan 24, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Krioval » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:16 am

The Imperial Chiefdom notes that this resolution has passed 4,748 votes to 1,365. We are grateful to our supporters for recognizing the importance of international trade.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

User avatar
Noordeinde
Minister
 
Posts: 2459
Founded: Mar 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Noordeinde » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:21 am

" Mister Chairman, I would like to have to honor to congratulate the Honourable Ambassador of Krioval and his Government because their resolution has passed with great majority!"
I'm gay, for gay rights, and I don't care what you think, its my life. If you support gay rights put this in your signature.


User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2453
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:28 am

I too congratulate the honored ambassador from Krioval. A job well done, and can we assume that you'll be retiring to the Stranger's Bar to demonstrate the processes of free trade with the rest of us?
The Unified States Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlett - President

Ideological Bulwark #235

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9027
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:33 pm

Krioval wrote:And exactly how do you propose to do that without taking it away? If you don't take it, Doctor Castro, it amounts to all of a flowery declaration, much like Senate Resolution 1776 that passed in Krioval, placing the entirety of the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes into the commons. Thus, at some point, either somebody is going to take possession of the property or they aren't. If they do, it's property seizure. If they don't, then it's a declaration of nothingness. So which is it, then?

Well yes, if the government takes property from the Commons, then it's seizing that property. But there's no owner, so there's nobody to compensate. That's the entire point. I could say it until I'm blue in the face and you would still disagree, but the beauty of it all is that Your Excellency doesn't have to agree at all.

Krioval wrote:Can we also assume that the government isn't comprised of idiots lacking all economic perspective while we're at it? All right, then. Rather than "eradicat[ing]" all private healthcare industry with a single stroke of the pen, perhaps the government should consider regulating the industry first?

Which is obviously implied, considering I've already given this scenario time again. But, if you must. If the regulation fails? Also, I find it incredibly ironic that a resolution titled "National Economic Freedoms" actually removes the freedom of economic self-determination. It shouldn't matter if a government skips regulation, in any scenario, because that's their choice... rather, it used to be.

Krioval wrote:Maybe they could create a competitor to private industry?

Which hasn't proven itself to be the best way of controlling prices, as compared to the government being the only healthcare provider.

Krioval wrote:Perhaps the government could content itself with buying out only the largest players in the healthcare industry, and not worry about the local doctor's offices?

Still an impossibly expensive endeavor.

Krioval wrote:This entire debate is predicated on people's abilities, including those in a government, to think for more than ten seconds about how to run an economy.

Again, Krioval believes that their way is the only correct way.

Krioval wrote:Are you actually suggesting, Doctor Castro, that Krioval should shed tears over the most bumbling efforts to nationalize industry when a group of graduate students could do it more efficiently and with less misery for everybody involved?

I'm suggesting that Krioval shouldn't care one way or another, if they truly believed in economic freedom.

Krioval wrote:The costs are perfectly reasonable when considering any transition short of starting from laissez-faire capitalism and moving immediately toward total collectivism, wherein personal residences and the corner store are administered by the state, which occurs so rarely that the Imperial Chiefdom is unable to describe any such transition that occurs outside of period of war.

The scenario provided, which happens (well, happened) frequently in nations transitioning in to some form of socialism, would suggest otherwise, but again about saying things until I'm blue in the face...

[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]Image[/float]
Last edited by Glen-Rhodes on Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Krioval
Minister
 
Posts: 2458
Founded: Jan 24, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Krioval » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:20 pm

Thank you again for the congratulations. The Imperial Chiefdom is most gratified that we could serve this Assembly in this small way.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

User avatar
Rotovia-
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jun 02, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Rotovia- » Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:00 pm

Krioval wrote:
Rotovia- wrote:It is our opinion that this resolution would fundamentally undermine the constitutional and historic right of our government to exercise eminent domain "in just terms" and with "just consideration". This resolution expands the power of the World Assembly too far into the realm of the sovereign nations and deliberately undermines a necessary power of sovereignty vested in many nations. Rotovia further cannot support this resolution as it would amend our constitution, an act requiring a two-thirds popular referendum and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, something for which there is no political will (polls indicate a support for such an amendment sits at 12%, with opposition at 52%).


I wish to apologize, Doctor DuVelle, for not addressing this earlier; in the rapid back-and-forth of this debate, we missed Your Excellency's concerns. The Imperial Chiefdom would like to point out that nothing in this resolution is construed to undermine eminent domain as practiced by many nations, unless the Constitutional Republic of Rotovia ordinarily does not grant compensation for seized property. If that is the case, then yes, this resolution would mandate compensation, though several delegations believe that they have found a way around this. I would have to ask Your Excellency to explain to the Imperial Chiefdom how "in just terms" and "just consideration" are applied in the Constitutional Republic before I could definitively address Your Excellency's concerns, however.

With regard to national sovereignty, this resolution is among the more sovereignty-friendly legislation proposed by this Assembly, in that it explicitly leaves nearly all of the management of national economies to the nations. Aside from the issues of eminent domain and compensation, were there any other sovereignty concerns that Your Excellency wishes to address?

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

Lord Tyvok,

As in many nations based on constitutional monarchy or nations who have a historical legal basis in such a system, there is an assumption of crown ownership which permits the freehold ownership of individuals, contracts, exchanges, and free use subject to the rules imposed by the crown.

The terms by which the state could resume land is therefore only limited by the conditions imposed by the crown, being that the High Court upholds "just terms" were offered and "just consideration" was offered. Historically the courts have ruled that this requires adequate notice, a prevailing public or crown interest, fair treatment, as well as market value for the land. The later principle has been waived on occassions where the government has required to resume land due to criminal activity, prevailing natural disasters, or where items of historic or resource value are designated as of crown interest by the courts.

This resolution is a disapoinment to our government, and we will be working with our regional partners to seek its repeal.

Dr Patricia DuVelle
Rotovian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Professor of International Relations (University of Athens)
Last edited by Rotovia- on Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Krioval
Minister
 
Posts: 2458
Founded: Jan 24, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Krioval » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:24 pm

Rotovia- wrote:Lord Tyvok,

As in many nations based on constitutional monarchy or nations who have a historical legal basis in such a system, there is an assumption of crown ownership which permits the freehold ownership of individuals, contracts, exchanges, and free use subject to the rules imposed by the crown.

The terms by which the state could resume land is therefore only limited by the conditions imposed by the crown, being that the High Court upholds "just terms" were offered and "just consideration" was offered. Historically the courts have ruled that this requires adequate notice, a prevailing public or crown interest, fair treatment, as well as market value for the land. The later principle has been waived on occassions where the government has required to resume land due to criminal activity, prevailing natural disasters, or where items of historic or resource value are designated as of crown interest by the courts.

This resolution is a disapoinment to our government, and we will be working with our regional partners to seek its repeal.

Dr Patricia DuVelle
Rotovian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Professor of International Relations (University of Athens)


We thank you for your reasoned reply, Doctor DuVelle. The Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval is very similar in many ways to the government that you outline above. Emperor Dylan (the First) occupies the role of a constitutional monarch, while the elected Senate conducts nearly all of the business of running the state. This resolution has not forced a chance in our policies of eminent domain or property seizure, and reading the transcript of your commentary, I am unable to find a conflict between the resolution and the standards set by the Constitutional Republic of Rotovia. It would appear to us that the "just terms" and "just consideration" policies of your nation's government would constitute sufficient compensation except possibly in the cases of the historic or resource exemptions. In those cases, this resolution would simply require compensation be given - there is no time frame to impose upon Rotovia, as long as the compensation is given on seizure of the property.

Thus, the Imperial Chiefdom is puzzled as to the conflict between your national government's policies and those installed by this resolution. I would be happy to discuss this further, to see if our positions can be reconciled on this issue. If it turns out that we cannot find a common solution, we are nonetheless thankful for the respectful handling of our disagreement by the Constitutional Republic of Rotovia, and in particular, by yourself, Doctor DuVelle.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

User avatar
Community Property
Attaché
 
Posts: 90
Founded: Apr 06, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: PASSED: National Economic Freedoms

Postby Community Property » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:43 am

Damn you, World Assembly! You just turned my Communist regime into a mere Socialist one! Now I will have to find new ways to stamp out private enterprise in order to return to my proper status as a '60's-vintage Left-Wing Utopia with an Imploded economy! "Civil Rights Lovefest" indeed!

<shakes fist>

Curse you, Red Baron!

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads

cron