[draft] Not Your Business?

[USS Monitor]

This was typed directly onto the forum all in one go, so it's pretty rough.

Not Your Business?

desc: Although @@NAME@@ rejects capitalism, there are many private businesses owned by @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ expats living abroad in capitalistic countries. The issue recently made headlines in a very embarrassing way as a @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ factory owner was arrested by Brancalandian authorities for tax fraud and violating local labor laws.

validity: socialist nations that allow emigration

Option: Your red-faced Minister of Industry marches into your office, slams a newspaper on your desk, and proclaims angrily, "This goes against everything @@NAME@@ stands for! @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ should not be allowed to oppress and exploit the workers just because they are doing it somewhere else. All @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@-owned businesses must be nationalized no matter what country they are in, and if Brancaland objects we will send them a strongly worded letter! You must put an end to this national embarrassment at once!"
Effect: the newest @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ "consulate" in Brancaland looks suspiciously like a ladder factory

Option: A lawyer representing the factory owner straightens @@HIS(1)@@ suit, clears his throat, and recites in a dry monotone, "My client has done nothing wrong and the charges against @@HIM(2)@@ are completely unfounded. Private enterprise is perfectly legal in Brancaland, and the factory employees who worked 14 hour shifts were doing voluntary overtime. You should demand @@HIS(2)@@ immediate release."
Effect: the nation exports socialist literature, capitalist pigs, and lame effect lines that I should fix in the 2nd draft

Option: "Hogwash! That capitalist pig had it coming and you should leave @@HIM(2)@@ to rot!" exclaims your Minister of Propaganda. "This would have never happened if our people weren't traveling overseas and being exposed to dangerous capitalist propaganda! Close the borders and demand that @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ stay here in @@NAME@@ where they are only exposed to OUR propaganda."
effect: the new economic plan is going nowhere

[Trotterdam]

I don't think @@NAME@@ would have juridiction over what its emigrants are up to, unless they plan to return to @@NAME@@.

[SherpDaWerp]

This was typed directly onto the forum all in one go, so it's pretty rough.

Pretty rough by an editor's standards

Although @@NAME@@ rejects capitalism, there are many private businesses owned by @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ expats living abroad in capitalistic countries.

Your red-faced Minister of Industry marches into your office and slams a newspaper on your desk, proclaiming angrily,

Just spotted a couple places where present-participle verbs would flow better than their root verb equivalents. I always feel it's a bit presumptuous to suggest actual wording tweaks like this, so... these are only the ones that seem like they'd be changed by someone else.

the nation exports socialist literature, capitalist pigs, and lame effect lines that I should fix in the 2nd draft

I get that this is a placeholder, but I almost wish it could get published as-is, cause this is pretty funny.

Gotta say I disagree with you there, Trott; there are plenty of other issues where @@name@@ intervenes with citizens overseas. It is a bit different, sure - generally those deal with another country starting the problem and @@name@@ responding, whereas in this @@name@@ that's been ideologically slighted. That said, it would be challenging to enforce laws on someone not in @@name@@, but not impossible (and, like, you're @@leader@@, so if it's not legally possible, choosing that option makes it legally possible). Jurisdiction only applies intra-nationally in RL because that's common convention.

In fact, it could setup a followup issue where Brancaland refuses to extradite someone over their non-nationalised business, which would be interesting.

[USS Monitor]

I don't think @@NAME@@ would have juridiction over what its emigrants are up to, unless they plan to return to @@NAME@@.

It is difficult to enforce anything, but many countries do have laws governing their citizens actions abroad, such as laws against sex tourism or the fact that the US still expects expats to pay taxes. (I've heard that the US tax thing is unusual, but it is still a thing.)

This was typed directly onto the forum all in one go, so it's pretty rough.

Pretty rough by an editor's standards

Although @@NAME@@ rejects capitalism, there are many private businesses owned by @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ expats living abroad in capitalistic countries.

Your red-faced Minister of Industry marches into your office and slams a newspaper on your desk, proclaiming angrily,

Just spotted a couple places where present-participle verbs would flow better than their root verb equivalents. I always feel it's a bit presumptuous to suggest actual wording tweaks like this, so... these are only the ones that seem like they'd be changed by someone else.

The first one was kind of bugging me that the sentence sounded clunky, so that's changed. Not sold on the second one.

And it's not too presumptuous. It's part of what this forum is for.

I had an idea for a 4th option about starting government-backed businesses overseas as a kind of soft-power way to spread your nation's ideals, but it didn't make the first draft because I had trouble articulating it.

[Trotterdam]

It is difficult to enforce anything, but many countries do have laws governing their citizens actions abroad, such as laws against sex tourism or the fact that the US still expects expats to pay taxes. (I've heard that the US tax thing is unusual, but it is still a thing.)

Yeah, but the sex tourism thing is enforced when the tourists come back. (That's kinda what "tourism" means.)

I guess the question is, why does this person (who obviously has no love for @@NAME@@'s economic policies) still care to retain @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ citizenship? If you've settled down in Bracaland enough to own a business there, you're probably planning to stay there.

Come to think of it, #1249 is about a @@DEMONYMNOUN@@ who invests in a capitalistic business without emigrating to another country. This is kinda "the same, but less".

[Bears Armed]

I guess the question is, why does this person (who obviously has no love for @@NAME@@'s economic policies) still care to retain @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ citizenship? If you've settled down in Bracaland enough to own a business there, you're probably planning to stay there.

But you might be planning to [help] fund a revolution or coup before you return...

[USS Monitor]

People might keep their citizenship so they can come home to visit family, etc. -- or just to avoid the inconvenience of being stateless persons. Living in Brancaland does not necessarily mean having Brancalandian citizenship or being able to get a Brancalandian passport.

Could also reframe the issue to deal with people who want to come home when their businesses fail.

And the international travel thing is an integral part of this issue, not just something that makes it "less." It is an emigration issue that might end up getting tweaked some. It is not an issue about corruption in the @@DEMONYMADJ@@ government, whereas 1249 is a corruption issue.

I think I am going to take out the word "wealthy" so it doesn't make this guy sound like more of a hotshot than he needs to be.

[USS Monitor]

I guess the question is, why does this person (who obviously has no love for @@NAME@@'s economic policies) still care to retain @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ citizenship? If you've settled down in Bracaland enough to own a business there, you're probably planning to stay there.

But you might be planning to [help] fund a revolution or coup before you return...

The factory owner isn't that political.

[Bears Armed]

But you might be planning to [help] fund a revolution or coup before you return...

The factory owner isn't that political.

But is @@LEADER@@ that paranoid?
I can imagine ones like Stalin -- or Putin -- sending out assassins after the factory owner, just in case...

[SherpDaWerp]

And it's not too presumptuous. It's part of what this forum is for.

There's still a world of difference between "I think this could be reworded" and "That should be written it like this", but thanks.

I had an idea for a 4th option about starting government-backed businesses overseas as a kind of soft-power way to spread your nation's ideals, but it didn't make the first draft because I had trouble articulating it.

I'm not really sure how that addresses the core concern of the issue, to be honest. Sure, you're going and starting government-backed businesses, but there's still going to be @@randomname@@ out there embarrassing the country with @@his@@ filthy non-socialist ideals? That could just be how I'm imagining such an option would be written, though.

[USS Monitor]

The factory owner isn't that political.

But is @@LEADER@@ that paranoid?
I can imagine ones like Stalin -- or Putin -- sending out assassins after the factory owner, just in case...

A large number of people have started private businesses, and this guy is just the one who has been in the news. Most would be small mom & pop things, but do you try to assassinate all of them?

And it's not too presumptuous. It's part of what this forum is for.

There's still a world of difference between "I think this could be reworded" and "That should be written it like this", but thanks.

I had an idea for a 4th option about starting government-backed businesses overseas as a kind of soft-power way to spread your nation's ideals, but it didn't make the first draft because I had trouble articulating it.

I'm not really sure how that addresses the core concern of the issue, to be honest. Sure, you're going and starting government-backed businesses, but there's still going to be @@randomname@@ out there embarrassing the country with @@his@@ filthy non-socialist ideals? That could just be how I'm imagining such an option would be written, though.

It'd be one of those, "This gives me an idea" type options, not a direct solution to the problem.

[Australian rePublic]

I don't think @@NAME@@ would have juridiction over what its emigrants are up to, unless they plan to return to @@NAME@@.

This. And if you wanted to implement such a stratergy, then that would apply to all laws, not just this specific one. One way is to go after the family members of @@DENONONYM@@ living abroad. Part of the reason for moving overseas is so that you don't have to put up with @@NAME@@'s laws.