NationStates

Sensible Limits on Industry
Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing that privately-owned businesses might prioritize profits above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,

Recognizing also that state-owned businesses, especially ones whose managers face potential punishment if they fail to meet quotas, might likewise prioritize output of goods and services above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,

and

Believing that the health, safety, and well-being of people and of the environment should receive reasonable protection;

Hereby,
1). Authorizes member nations to Involuntarily Dissolve any privately-owned business operations within their territories if those operations unreasonably impinge on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment;

2). Allows member nations to seize the assets of any privately-owned business that unreasonably impinges on the health, safety, and well-being of the people or of the environment provided that those assets be sold in order to reimburse the shareholders and employees of the Dissolved company;

3). Requires that member nations allow their state-owned industries to act only in ways that do not impinge unreasonably on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment, and must take these needs properly into consideration when setting any targets for those industries;

4). Requires each member nation to establish a set of standards for these matters, subject to any restrictions set by earlier GA resolutions that are still in force, that applies equally to all businesses and industries operating in a given field of activity within that nation regardless of its ownership.

OOC: This is my first time submitting General Assembly Legislation, so I'm not sure if this fits the rubric or not, so id be very grateful if y'all could help me fix the bill and make it better. Thank you

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

It's great to see a newbie drafter actually posting the draft here rather than submitting it rightaway.

I'll let the people more versed in corporate law to let you know how feasible your suggestion is, but I'm fairly certain that to do any of that, you'd need to have gone through a proper and fair trial. There should even be an existing resolution that deals with seizing of assets, unless my memory's acting up again, have you looked through the existing resolutions?

Also, I suggest putting the Category and Strength or Area of Effect (some categories have strengths, some have areas of effect) at the start of the proposal post, because some questions about proposal legality (that means, whether it obeys the proposal rules) depend on the Category and Strength/AoE chosen.

OOC: I'm not a GAer, so I can't say much on the substance of it. A few things I noticed, though:

Islands of unity wrote:Admitting that capitalism works best when corporations act in a legal and ethical manner;

Wouldn't "Asserting" be a better preambulatory phrase?

Islands of unity wrote:Accepting that too often governments in the WA are unable to stop corporations from acting in an unethical or crimminal manner;

criminal*

Islands of unity wrote:Holding that large fines can be ineffective at stoping certain serious types of corporate crime.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Holding". A better phrase may be "Realizing" or "Observing".

Islands of unity wrote:(b) Dissmissing every employee and

Dismissing*

Islands of unity wrote:(c) Selling the corporations assests to competing corporations and

assets*

Fixed the errors pointed out by roavin

Saranidia supports this.

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

OOC
Regular grumble returns: 'corporations' =/= big business, corporations = any bodies that have been legally 'incorporated. They can also be local governments (e.g. "the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London"), QUANGOs (e.g. the BBC), or even charities, among other things... whilst you can also have large business that are still owned by individual people or families and that therefore haven't been incorporated.

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

So how about
"Recognizing that state-owned businesses whose managers face serious official displeasure if they fail to meet [possibly unrealistic] production targets are likely to prioritise output of goods over the health, safety, and well-being of people;"?

I support this.

Bears Armed wrote:

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

OOC
Regular grumble returns: 'corporations' =/= big business, corporations = any bodies that have been legally 'incorporated. They can also be local governments (e.g. "the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London"), QUANGOs (e.g. the BBC), or even charities, among other things... whilst you can also have large business that are still owned by individual people or families and that therefore haven't been incorporated.

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

So how about
"Recognizing that state-owned businesses whose managers face serious official displeasure if they fail to meet [possibly unrealistic] production targets are likely to prioritize output of goods over the health, safety, and well-being of people;"?

OOC: The way I worded the bill does allow for the interpretation that its aimed at big businesses, but I do think there is the possibility that other such corporations like cities or charities should apply to this law too, as they can also violate ethics and act in a criminal way.

I have some issues with the suggestion you made, particularly the "state-owned" part-Id use the term chartered so that more potentially unethical or criminal corporations could be subject to dissolution. (unless i'm misinterpreting what you meant) But overall I do like the spirit of the suggestion, as it clears up the wording. Is it ok if I replace the state-owned wording with "state-chartered or owned" and add it to the bill?

"So, this legalizes government theft? For actions that are not even illegal? Opposed."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"So, this legalizes government theft? For actions that are not even illegal? Opposed."

(Does this mean that the law is legal? And do the quotes imply being in character or is it something else?)

"The ethical commitments were an oversite from a previous version of the bill, now only corporations who have committed crimes can be dissolved. I'm sure that you can agree that capitalism works best when the laws guiding it are not breached"

Islands of unity wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"So, this legalizes government theft? For actions that are not even illegal? Opposed."

(Does this mean that the law is legal? And do the quotes imply being in character or is it something else?)

(OOC: The quotes mean beings IC, or in-character. Separatist peoples was asking if your proposal legalises governmental theft for legal actions, which it currently does as your proposal allows a government to seize assets for unethical actions.)

Islands of unity wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

OOC
Regular grumble returns: 'corporations' =/= big business, corporations = any bodies that have been legally 'incorporated. They can also be local governments (e.g. "the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London"), QUANGOs (e.g. the BBC), or even charities, among other things... whilst you can also have large business that are still owned by individual people or families and that therefore haven't been incorporated.

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

So how about
"Recognizing that state-owned businesses whose managers face serious official displeasure if they fail to meet [possibly unrealistic] production targets are likely to prioritize output of goods over the health, safety, and well-being of people;"?

OOC: The way I worded the bill does allow for the interpretation that its aimed at big businesses, but I do think there is the possibility that other such corporations like cities or charities should apply to this law too, as they can also violate ethics and act in a criminal way.

I have some issues with the suggestion you made, particularly the "state-owned" part-Id use the term chartered so that more potentially unethical or criminal corporations could be subject to dissolution. (unless i'm misinterpreting what you meant) But overall I do like the spirit of the suggestion, as it clears up the wording. Is it ok if I replace the state-owned wording with "state-chartered or owned" and add it to the bill?

What is being referred to are wholly State owned companies, most generally in socialist, or most especially, communist nations. (OOC: think former Soviet Union and Soviet bloc countries where the government owned and operated everything) If you believe only “capitalist” business can be unethical or commit crimes then you are taking gullible and naive to entirely new levels.

This is also disturbing in that it appears to endorse “collective responsibility”, Dismiss all employees. Great plan. Because none of them were not acting illegally, none of them have families, no other businesses depend on the employees making purchases at their shops. And certainly, no government would *ever* abuse such wide reaching powers.

You want to create ghost towns? Because this is a great first step in doing so.

What is being referred to are wholly State-owned companies, most generally in socialist, or most especially, communist nations. (OOC: think former Soviet Union and Soviet bloc countries where the government owned and operated everything) If you believe only “capitalist” business can be unethical or commit crimes then you are taking gullible and naive to entirely new levels.

This is also disturbing in that it appears to endorse “collective responsibility”, Dismiss all employees. Great plan. Because none of them were not acting illegally, none of them have families, no other businesses depend on the employees making purchases at their shops. And certainly, no government would *ever* abuse such wide-reaching powers.

You want to create ghost towns? Because this is a great first step in doing so.

"Socialist or communist nations would already have control over the corporations and would be likely to be able to dissolve them at will than capitalist nations without this bill. Also, allowing competing companies to gain control over the assets of the dissolved corporation, and reimbursing the shareholders will minimize the damage done to the economy by dissolving a large corporation. (ooc: I am considering adding a clause to require employees to be dismissed with extra funds after the shareholder reimbursement, would this help your concerns with the bill?) I do not want ghost towns, and I fully believe that by having equitable punishments for corporations who commit crimes and harm people will allow for the towns you'd suspect to be too reliant on one company to flourish and grow"

“I’m questioning whether this actually does anything. This seems to recognise a right that member nations already have, as no WA law has banned it. What do you want to achieve with this proposal that hasn’t already been done?”

Bears Armed wrote:

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

OOC
Regular grumble returns: 'corporations' =/= big business, corporations = any bodies that have been legally 'incorporated. They can also be local governments (e.g. "the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London"), QUANGOs (e.g. the BBC), or even charities, among other things... whilst you can also have large business that are still owned by individual people or families and that therefore haven't been incorporated.

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

So how about
"Recognizing that state-owned businesses whose managers face serious official displeasure if they fail to meet [possibly unrealistic] production targets are likely to prioritise output of goods over the health, safety, and well-being of people;"?

OOC: There's also the admittedly non-standard, but still valid, interpretation of "corporate body" to mean "corporeal body" - meaning if a person flouts (say) banking regulations, that person may be disintegrated into their component organs, which will then be sold or donated to those awaiting transplants. While that interpretation would be deprecated in favor of one that didn't contradict existing laws, it's the one I find most amusing (and also conducive to future good conduct among employees and owners of major firms).

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's also the admittedly non-standard, but still valid, interpretation of "corporate body" to mean "corporeal body" - meaning if a person flouts (say) banking regulations, that person may be disintegrated into their component organs, which will then be sold or donated to those awaiting transplants.

OOC: I like this interpretation.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

OOC
Regular grumble returns: 'corporations' =/= big business, corporations = any bodies that have been legally 'incorporated. They can also be local governments (e.g. "the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London"), QUANGOs (e.g. the BBC), or even charities, among other things... whilst you can also have large business that are still owned by individual people or families and that therefore haven't been incorporated.

Recognizing that corporations are likely to prioritize profits over the health, safety, and well-being of people;

So how about
"Recognizing that state-owned businesses whose managers face serious official displeasure if they fail to meet [possibly unrealistic] production targets are likely to prioritise output of goods over the health, safety, and well-being of people;"?

OOC: There's also the admittedly non-standard, but still valid, interpretation of "corporate body" to mean "corporeal body" - meaning if a person flouts (say) banking regulations, that person may be disintegrated into their component organs, which will then be sold or donated to those awaiting transplants. While that interpretation would be deprecated in favor of one that didn't contradict existing laws, it's the one I find most amusing (and also conducive to future good conduct among employees and owners of major firms).

OOC: Dissolving individuals who break the law? This is starting to sound less like an anti-big business proposal and more like an episode of Breaking Bad. Also, under that read, contradiction of current Capital Punishment resolutions.

Liberimery wrote:OOC: Dissolving individuals who break the law? This is starting to sound less like an anti-big business proposal and more like an episode of Breaking Bad.

OOC: That episode, btw, was pure bull. That acid won't dissolve a body, especially not in that amount, temperature and time.

Araraukar wrote:

Liberimery wrote:OOC: Dissolving individuals who break the law? This is starting to sound less like an anti-big business proposal and more like an episode of Breaking Bad.

OOC: That episode, btw, was pure bull. That acid won't dissolve a body, especially not in that amount, temperature and time.

OOC: This is true. It was established long ago that falling into a vat of acid turns your skin white, your hair green, and puts a permanent grin on your face. Maniacal laughter is extra.

Araraukar wrote:

Liberimery wrote:OOC: Dissolving individuals who break the law? This is starting to sound less like an anti-big business proposal and more like an episode of Breaking Bad.

OOC: That episode, btw, was pure bull. That acid won't dissolve a body, especially not in that amount, temperature and time.

Well if Jesse had bought the right bin, it wouldn't have eaten through the bathtub and done the proper job!

Grays Harbor wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: That episode, btw, was pure bull. That acid won't dissolve a body, especially not in that amount, temperature and time.

OOC: This is true. It was established long ago that falling into a vat of acid turns your skin white, your hair green, and puts a permanent grin on your face. Maniacal laughter is extra.

OOC: Or otherwise turns you into all manner of super-powered individual

OOC

Islands of unity wrote:

What is being referred to are wholly State-owned companies, most generally in socialist, or most especially, communist nations. (OOC: think former Soviet Union and Soviet bloc countries where the government owned and operated everything) If you believe only “capitalist” business can be unethical or commit crimes then you are taking gullible and naive to entirely new levels.

"Socialist or communist nations would already have control over the corporations and would be likely to be able to dissolve them at will than capitalist nations without this bill."

And the government that set those quotas in the first place is going to shut-down the operation because its manager tried to meet the quotas? Do you really think so? I don’t.

Kenmoria wrote:

Islands of unity wrote:(Does this mean that the law is legal? And do the quotes imply being in character or is it something else?)

(OOC: The quotes mean beings IC, or in-character. Separatist peoples was asking if your proposal legalises governmental theft for legal actions, which it currently does as your proposal allows a government to seize assets for unethical actions.)

No, I think that what SP is pointing out is a detail that I should also have caught_
As there’s no international legislation currently banning governments from shutting down businesses under those conditions, governments are already capable of doing so anyway: Therefore, all that your proposal does is (a) re-state the status quo, and (b) block any future proposals which would take away that right. You need to add some further mandate (or, at least, an “Urges” clause) that would apply in the present in order to save this from illegality for being nothing but a blocker.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's also the admittedly non-standard, but still valid, interpretation of "corporate body" to mean "corporeal body" - meaning if a person flouts (say) banking regulations, that person may be disintegrated into their component organs, which will then be sold or donated to those awaiting transplants. While that interpretation would be deprecated in favor of one that didn't contradict existing laws, it's the one I find most amusing (and also conducive to future good conduct among employees and owners of major firms).

RL English law actually recognizes the concept of the 'corporation sole', which is a corporation that consists of one person at a time but with property & contracts passing to that person's successor in whatever official position is involved (e.g. bishop of a specific diocese) rather than to the previous holder's personal heirs.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:OOC: This is true. It was established long ago that falling into a vat of acid turns your skin white, your hair green, and puts a permanent grin on your face. Maniacal laughter is extra.

OOC: Or otherwise turns you into all manner of super-powered individual

OOC: As someone who subscribes to the theory that The Joker is aware of his status as a fictional character and that's why he does all of his crazy things: Because it entertains his reader and he's not hurting "real" people I have to ask: Canot two things be true at once?

OOC
Also, there's no such category as 'Legal Regulation - Strong'. under current rules. 'Regulation' has only as areas of effect, not strengths, and its 'Legal' AoE refers specifically to regulating the practice of Law as an industry.

Here’s a suggested re-draft.

Sensible Limits on Industry
Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing that privately-owned businesses might prioritize profits above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,
Recognizing also that state-owned businesses, especially ones whose managers face potential punishment if they fail to meet quotas, might likewise prioritize output of goods and services above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,
and
Believing that the health, safety, and well-being of people and of the environment should receive reasonable protection;

Hereby,
1). Authorizes member nations to shut-down any privately-owned business operations within their territories if those operations unreasonably impinge on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment;
2). Requires that member nations allow their state-owned industries to act only in ways that do not impinge unreasonably on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment, and must take these needs properly into consideration when setting any targets for those industries;
3). Requires each member nation to establish a set of standards for these matters, subject to any restrictions set by earlier GA resolutions that are still force, that applies equally to all businesses and industries operating in a given field of activity within that nation regardless of its ownership.