[IDEA] Fair Markets Act ('Against State Capitalism' V2)

[Chester Pearson]

Good God. Leftists took Nationstates over completely.

OOC: This is one of the most right wing proposals that has ever been seen in the WA. Since when were anarcho-capitalists "leftists"?

Because it doesn't have a big elephant on it?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...the World Assembly needs a piece of legislation that serves to help mitigate State (or Crony) Capitalism, which is a corrupt system that severely skews the Free Market.

Fixed that for ya.

Anyway, the total non-interference policy you're propounding here would violate GAR #209, Article 2; GAR #177, Paragraphs 3-4 (and maybe 5); and not only are ideological bans of the sort you seek illegal, they also contradict the preamble of GAR #68 (NEF).

"Of course, the problem with a Progressive Income tax is that corporations are forced to pay more for succeeding. A Progressive Tax inherently favors small companies over large companies; a flat tax assures that all companies are being treated the same. That is the goal of this resolution: A Free Market that is not only free, but also fair. Fairness cannot be established when the standards fluctuate depending on the success of a company.

The end goal of corporations is specifically to attain monopoly over whatever their market is (whether by bankrupting, acquiring, or merging with their competitors). This is prevented through taxation and regulation of the kind you want to do away with. The only way to ensure a free market is to make sure the members of that market never, ever, ever gain control of it. If you want the market to be free, you need to divorce yourself from the absurd notion that "capitalism" and "free enterprise" are more than tangentially related: capitalism and communism are two faces of the same coin, whose denomination is precisely the death of the free market. So, to bring this tangent to the point, you want a progressive tax because that's one of the ways you keep any one market actor from getting big enough to distort the market through means other than producing a superior product. Government, if interested in a free market, should always act to obstruct large actors, and get off the backs of small actors.

TL;DR: This resolution will do the exact opposite of what you say is the intention - and that's always been grounds for repeal, should this walking contradiction actually pass.

(edit: url fix)

[Reploid Productions]

one more tidbit the General assembly is full of communist swine, still i suggest comrade that you deny them any ground at all costs

It is considered extremely poor form for an ambassador to this esteemed assembly to make such sweeping generalizations that are clearly meant simply to inflame tempers. It's also called trolling, and is against the site rules. Knock it off.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Nordenwald]

After taking into account some of the violations of previous proposals (specifically the GAR 17 violation) I edited the proposal a bit, so now it focuses specifically on the practice of business subsidization.

I eliminated all clauses relating to tariffs, and drastically changed the clause relating to corporate tax. Again, I further specified the proposal so that it specifically relates to the practice of subsidization.

Please review the new draft. Thank you.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I still don't see how this doesn't A) interfere with a member state's domestic taxation policy, as per the World Assembly General Fund, since there is nothing inherently discriminatory about subsidization of a particular business, and B) how this doesn't contradict National Economic Freedoms, which prevents WA interference in domestic economies, since selective subsidization isn't an inherent threat to the heath or well being of citizens. This is still illegal, to say nothing of poorly thought out."

[Nordenwald]

"I still don't see how this doesn't A) interfere with a member state's domestic taxation policy, as per the World Assembly General Fund, since there is nothing inherently discriminatory about subsidization of a particular business, and B) how this doesn't contradict National Economic Freedoms, which prevents WA interference in domestic economies, since selective subsidization isn't an inherent threat to the heath or well being of citizens. This is still illegal, to say nothing of poorly thought out."

"The national taxation policy is not effected by this resolution except by ensuring that all companies are taxed by the same policy."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I still don't see how this doesn't A) interfere with a member state's domestic taxation policy, as per the World Assembly General Fund, since there is nothing inherently discriminatory about subsidization of a particular business, and B) how this doesn't contradict National Economic Freedoms, which prevents WA interference in domestic economies, since selective subsidization isn't an inherent threat to the heath or well being of citizens. This is still illegal, to say nothing of poorly thought out."

"The national taxation policy is not effected by this resolution except by ensuring that all companies are taxed by the same policy."

"Which is interference. There isn't anything inherently doscriminatory by the practice, nor is the population at risk by doing so. No exceptional condition is met."

[Nordenwald]

"Which is interference. There isn't anything inherently doscriminatory by the practice, nor is the population at risk by doing so. No exceptional condition is met."

"How is taxing two companies of the same size in the same industry differently not discriminatory?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

4. Tasks the [Agency] in order to regulate the Market and ensure that these policies are being enforced.

You really ought to provide a bit more here: is the scope of the [agency] (aside: why not use the World Assembly Trade Commission? It already exists, and already acts somewhat in this area), I say, is the scope of the [agency]'s powers of regulation only to enforce the other provisions of this proposal? If so, that should be made plain because the alternative is scarily open-ended (and possibly illegal).

[Separatist Peoples]

"Which is interference. There isn't anything inherently doscriminatory by the practice, nor is the population at risk by doing so. No exceptional condition is met."

"How is taxing two companies of the same size in the same industry differently not discriminatory?"

"Not all companies are equal. There exist non-arbitrary differences from one company to another that necessitate a difference in treatment, and is therefore not discriminatory."

[Normlpeople]

"It's still not legal in my non-secretariat opinion. Not a large leap to read that forbidding subsidized companies forbids state ownership of businesses, which is very much treading on an ideological ban"

[Krieg-Deathworld]

Just give it up, this will never work.

[United industrial]

are you joking anybody who has a big corporate economy will destroy this so don't even waste your time any more

[Defwa]

are you joking anybody who has a big corporate economy will destroy this so don't even waste your time any more

It had been three weeks from the last reply. The proposal was dead, the author shamed and absent from these halls.
And you saw fit to enter this dusty chamber and shout negativity to an empty room. Why is that?