[Draft] On Property Rights

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I think that the "must be written in English" rule is only OOC, and that IC proposals can be in any language originally because they get translated as necessary...

[Araraukar]

OOC: I think that the "must be written in English" rule is only OOC, and that IC proposals can be in any language originally because they get translated as necessary...

OOC: You mean I could write up one in Finnish and only offer a translation of it?

EDIT: Although, using Google Translate on it would make it a joke proposal...

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I think that the "must be written in English" rule is only OOC, and that IC proposals can be in any language originally because they get translated as necessary...

OOC: I have a monumental reservation that this loquacious and pretentious utilisation of sesquipedalian vocabulary falls under the category of the modern Anglo-Saxon tongue.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I think that the "must be written in English" rule is only OOC, and that IC proposals can be in any language originally because they get translated as necessary...

OOC: I have a monumental reservation that this loquacious and pretentious utilisation of sesquipedalian vocabulary falls under the category of the modern Anglo-Saxon tongue.

Ooc: It is, technically, English. That rule doesn't apply to complex language.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I have a monumental reservation that this loquacious and pretentious utilisation of sesquipedalian vocabulary falls under the category of the modern Anglo-Saxon tongue.

Ooc: It is, technically, English. That rule doesn't apply to complex language.

OOC: Well, it makes people unlikely to vote for it, as it'll appear as gibberish to most people...

[The New World Trading Company]

"I cannot be expected to coddle the delegations of foreign entities if they are unwilling to read. I expect they are literate. I should hope so, they are, after all, diplomatic representatives."

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I think that the "must be written in English" rule is only OOC, and that IC proposals can be in any language originally because they get translated as necessary...

OOC: I have a monumental reservation that this loquacious and pretentious utilisation of sesquipedalian vocabulary falls under the category of the modern Anglo-Saxon tongue.

OOC: I'm actually sort of confused by this whole discussion. The proposal uses some pretentious wording, but it's not like it's written in code. The word choice is annoying but not necessarily difficult. Why would a proposal be illegal for using a few big words?

[Araraukar]

"I cannot be expected to coddle the delegations of foreign entities if they are unwilling to read. I expect they are literate. I should hope so, they are, after all, diplomatic representatives."

Literate does not mean the same as being able to comprehensively translate everything into a language they know well. Especially when older turns of words are used in a most florid manner.

(OOC: Also, the vast majority of WA voters are not RPers or GAers and are likely not going to bother to look up unfamiliar words. That's not saying this is illegal for that, just that it's most likely going to cost you votes.)

[States of Glory WA Office]

"I cannot be expected to coddle the delegations of foreign entities if they are unwilling to read. I expect they are literate. I should hope so, they are, after all, diplomatic representatives."

Fairburn: That is indeed true, but all the same, I cannot be expected to understand the meanings of undefined technical words when my phone's search engine renders dozens of different and unrelated results. You're writing a resolution, for Pete's sake, not a legal essay...

...though that would explain the appalling title.

OOC: I have a monumental reservation that this loquacious and pretentious utilisation of sesquipedalian vocabulary falls under the category of the modern Anglo-Saxon tongue.

OOC: I'm actually sort of confused by this whole discussion. The proposal uses some pretentious wording, but it's not like it's written in code. The word choice is annoying but not necessarily difficult. Why would a proposal be illegal for using a few big words?

I'm more than happy to look up technical words, but what I said IC stands true: 'chancery', for example, has about a thousand different meanings according to Wikipedia and is a court of law that decides cases based on the principle of equity according to Google. What's the principle of equity? Heck if I know. I'm even more confused about what it has to do with the proposal.

The state’s actions shall solely be exempted for the purpose of taxation by liquidated legal tender, without capricious or unjustly arbitrary application of those policies intended to circumvent the aforementioned policies.

What does 'liquidated' mean in this context? It surely can't have anything to do with the a company's assets being redistributed, can it? If it does then I have no idea what sort of tax the author is talking about.

RE Legality: It was merely tongue-in-cheek. I'm not genuinely going to claim that this proposal isn't written in English.

[The New World Trading Company]

"I cannot be expected to coddle the delegations of foreign entities if they are unwilling to read. I expect they are literate. I should hope so, they are, after all, diplomatic representatives."

Fairburn: That is indeed true, but all the same, I cannot be expected to understand the meanings of undefined technical words when my phone's search engine renders dozens of different and unrelated results. You're writing a resolution, for Pete's sake, not a legal essay...

...though that would explain the appalling title.

OOC: I'm actually sort of confused by this whole discussion. The proposal uses some pretentious wording, but it's not like it's written in code. The word choice is annoying but not necessarily difficult. Why would a proposal be illegal for using a few big words?

I'm more than happy to look up technical words, but what I said IC stands true: 'chancery', for example, has about a thousand different meanings according to Wikipedia and is a court of law that decides cases based on the principle of equity according to Google. What's the principle of equity? Heck if I know. I'm even more confused about what it has to do with the proposal.

The state’s actions shall solely be exempted for the purpose of taxation by liquidated legal tender, without capricious or unjustly arbitrary application of those policies intended to circumvent the aforementioned policies.

What does 'liquidated' mean in this context? It surely can't have anything to do with the a company's assets being redistributed, can it? If it does then I have no idea what sort of tax the author is talking about.

RE Legality: It was merely tongue-in-cheek. I'm not genuinely going to claim that this proposal isn't written in English.

Ooc: how is anybody supposed to pass model UN laws if legal language is considered too hard? My RP deliberately uses pretentious, old world phrasing, but concepts like liquidated assets and equity aren't that complicated, and I shouldn't need to include a legal primer to play a game about writing law.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: how is anybody supposed to pass model UN laws if legal language is considered too hard?

OOC: Because we aren't. We're supposed to write World Assembly "laws". And Legalese is fine for real life lawyers and legislators, but such people tend to be so minimal a percentage of NS players as to be statistically nonexistent. And I say this with full knowledge of at least two people among GAers being lawyers.

My RP deliberately uses pretentious, old world phrasing

Yes, but if you used the word "gay", I can assure the majority of readers will not think "happy". Language evolves. For your RP Olden Times language is just fine. Putting it in resolution text is just asking for trouble.

but concepts like liquidated assets and equity aren't that complicated

Depends who you're talking to. I think we can only lay claim on a single economics student in GA, and he gets called out on it all the time too.

and I shouldn't need to include a legal primer to play a game about writing law.

Write laws all you want for your own nation, but when you're writing proposals for WA resolutions, you need to take into advice the practicality of it, especially if you want to pass any.

The vast majority of WA voters are not and don't want to be involved with RP in any manner. The vast majority of all players don't even touch the NS forums. As such, you can assume that most of your voters won't give a shit about your desire to RP in a resolution text, but will at most glance through the text, come to the conclusion that they don't have the faintest idea of what it's talking about, and vote against. And, unless you're just badge-hunting, non-precise language will make it easy to repeal, should it pass somehow.

I'm not telling you to use Simple English, but I'm suggesting you use normal, contemporary English in the proposal text.

[The New World Trading Company]

All out of character.

Ooc: how is anybody supposed to pass model UN laws if legal language is considered too hard?

Because we aren't. We're supposed to write World Assembly "laws". And Legalese is fine for real life lawyers and legislators, but such people tend to be so minimal a percentage of NS players as to be statistically nonexistent. And I say this with full knowledge of at least two people among GAers being lawyers.

Which begs the question as to why we're bothering playing Model UN at all if people aren't willing to do a little research. If we had to dumb things down that far, we would have to either pass a legal dictionary or give up on meaningful WA play at all.

Yes, but if you used the word "gay", I can assure the majority of readers will not think "happy". Language evolves. For your RP Olden Times language is just fine. Putting it in resolution text is just asking for trouble.

OOC: This is why RP is so dead in this forum. Rather than letting a player write something in character and submit it, knowing full well that what makes it in character is what will kill it, people have to jump up and down and stamp their feet trying to get the player to conform. I recall a great repeal of Suppression of International Piracy that broke all the rules you're trying to defend and made it to vote. That it failed doesn't matter, people got the chance to read it and enjoy the roleplaying from it.

Depends who you're talking to. I think we can only lay claim on a single economics student in GA, and he gets called out on it all the time too.

In law, the term equity refers to a particular set of remedies and associated procedures. These equitable doctrines and procedures are distinguished from "legal" ones. Equitable relief is generally available only when a legal remedy is insufficient or inadequate in some way. This could be when a claim involves a particular piece of real estate, or if specific performance is the relief requested by the plaintiff.

The distinction arose in England where there were separate courts of law and of equity. Following this pattern in America some states created "chancery courts" dealing with equitable relief only. In other states, the courts of common law were empowered to exercise equity jurisdiction. Separate courts of chancery have largely been abolished and the same court that may fashion a legal remedy has the power to prescribe an equitable one.

Five minutes on google. Five minutes. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of what I found online (in five minutes) is only 12, so anybody who graduated an American high school should be fine. Which means anybody smart enough to be on this website for more than ten minutes is just fine. Its not like it attracts the illiterate, being text-based.

and I shouldn't need to include a legal primer to play a game about writing law.

Write laws all you want for your own nation, but when you're writing proposals for WA resolutions, you need to take into advice the practicality of it, especially if you want to pass any.

I appreciate that you're trying to help somebody out who seems to be a newb. I do. But your advice for practicality sucks the fun right out of roleplay and drafting.

The vast majority of WA voters are not and don't want to be involved with RP in any manner. The vast majority of all players don't even touch the NS forums. As such, you can assume that most of your voters won't give a shit about your desire to RP in a resolution text, but will at most glance through the text, come to the conclusion that they don't have the faintest idea of what it's talking about, and vote against. And, unless you're just badge-hunting, non-precise language will make it easy to repeal, should it pass somehow.

Several points to make here.

1. Assuming that passing the resolution is the end goal, as opposed to having fun writing it and just getting it to vote, is half the problem with the forum these days. Losing can be fun, too. In fact, it should be for a game. Which this is.

2. If we're playing this game on the assumption that the voters don't care what we write, why are we playing the game in a way that panders to the voters? That, and not my actions, sounds like badge-hunting. Which reminds me...

3. Accusing me of badge hunting is just such poor form I haven't even words, but I'll give it a go despite the bad manners. Its a sad, sad day when a player trying to have fun, within the rules and conventions of the game even, is just accused of badge hunting. If you're statements are indicative of the way this forum's culture has evolved, I am really sorry for the game.

I'm not telling you to use Simple English, but I'm suggesting you use normal, contemporary English in the proposal text.

It sounds an awful lot like you're trying to box me into your preferred way of playing. I appreciate that that's the norm, but the norm here is pretty bad. I'm not willing to pander to the lowest common denominator. If you can demand resolutions accommodate sapient houseplants in resolutions, I can't see why I can't demand resolutions accommodate role-played language that complies with the rules.


I owe Gruenberg an apology.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This is why RP is so dead in this forum. Rather than letting a player write something in character and submit it, knowing full well that what makes it in character is what will kill it, people have to jump up and down and stamp their feet trying to get the player to conform.

OOC: Exactly how does writing intelligible proposals hamper your attempts to RP? You can RP all to your heart's content, but please understand that passing RP-language resolutions is harder than passing easily understood ones.

Five minutes on google. Five minutes.

Five minutes that non-RPers are very likely unwilling to use.

Its not like it attracts the illiterate, being text-based.

You'd be surprised... Also, English isn't everyone's first language.

I appreciate that you're trying to help somebody out who seems to be a newb. I do. But your advice for practicality sucks the fun right out of roleplay and drafting.

Many actual newbies hurry into submitting early, not wanting to take advice offered. I've found that they are more likely to listen in general, when the issues that will hamper the likelyhood to pass are pointed out first.

1. Assuming that passing the resolution is the end goal, as opposed to having fun writing it and just getting it to vote, is half the problem with the forum these days. Losing can be fun, too. In fact, it should be for a game. Which this is.

Then I suggest saying something like that to begin with, so that people can stop trying to help you.

3. Accusing me of badge hunting

Accusing? To my knowledge badge-hunting isn't a crime.

If you're statements are indicative of the way this forum's culture has evolved

I tried to help an apparent newbie, but apparently that's a bad thing to do now...

It sounds an awful lot like you're trying to box me into your preferred way of playing.

I was trying to advice you on how to maximize the passing chances of your proposal. If you never intented to actually pass it, you should've said so. Also, you seem very willing to ridicule other people's roleplaying (the "sapient houseplants" mention below).

but the norm here is pretty bad.

Which norm?

I'm not willing to pander to the lowest common denominator.

Again, I was trying to advice you on how to maximize the passing chances of your proposal. If you never intented to actually pass it, you should've said so.

If you can demand resolutions accommodate sapient houseplants in resolutions

Please point out where I've ever demanded for that to happen in resolution text? Have I roleplayed with sapient houseplants and used them to point out issues in proposals? Yes. Have I argued for species-neutral language in proposals so that different ways to RP would be accommodated? Yes. Have I ever demanded plant rights or whatever it is you're actually accusing me of demanding? Not to my knowledge, no.

I also argue against limitations on tech levels, in case you haven't noticed. And many other things, so that resolutions wouldn't restrict/hamper people's roleplaying around here. I'm defending roleplaying.

I can't see why I can't demand resolutions accommodate role-played language that complies with the rules.

Demand? My understanding of that word is not that it was synonymous of "suggest" or "ask". None of us can OOCly demand anything in this game, as we don't own it. We can only suggest and ask for things.

OOC EDIT: If you never intended to pass this, why'd you even post it here? You could've just submitted it.

[The New World Trading Company]

Out Of Character: I want to get this to vote. If it passes, great. If not, I won't lose sleep over it. That's a far cry from not actually wanting to to pass.

The rest of this detracts considerably from my drafting thread. Take it to literally any other medium.

[Araraukar]

Out Of Character: I want to get this to vote. If it passes, great. If not, I won't lose sleep over it. That's a far cry from not actually wanting to to pass.

OOC: Okay, you've been given advice on how to make it more likely to pass. Whether you want to apply that advice, is up to you.

[Europe and Oceania]

NORTH: We will grant our unwavering support for this valiant effort to slay the ultimate evil which has starved, oppressed, and murdered the greatest number of people in human history.

What, capitalism?

Indeed. Someone great once said:

"Socialism doesn't mean taking wealth from those who work hard and giving it to those who don't. You're thinking of Capitalism."

Capitalism is the ultimate evil in this world, specifically unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

[Gay Armies]

What, capitalism?

Indeed. Someone great once said:

"Socialism doesn't mean taking wealth from those who work hard and giving it to those who don't. You're thinking of Capitalism."

Capitalism is the ultimate evil in this world, specifically unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

"I feel as if you delegates may have completely misunderstood this bill. If anything, this bill is quite pro-capitalist, considering it declares that the state shall not deprive a person of his/her private property whether it be real, intangible, or... what did CP say?" The General's advisor whispers in his ear. "Chattel? What does that mean?" His advisor whispers in his ear again. "Okay... Well, regardless, it says the state cannot deprive a person if his/her private property.

"Personally, I don't think the author took into account that some nations have communist governments where private property is abolished entirely. I think he should make some amendments to this bill in order to include said communist governments instead of trying to enforce his capitalist ideals. In communist governments, all private property is seized from individuals by the state without due process of law.

"But of course, that is for the greater good of the people." The General straightens up his posture. "I think I'm done rambling on about my concerns. The author should take into account WA members who have either abolished private property, or seize it for the greater good of the nation."

[The New World Trading Company]

Indeed. Someone great once said:

"Socialism doesn't mean taking wealth from those who work hard and giving it to those who don't. You're thinking of Capitalism."

Capitalism is the ultimate evil in this world, specifically unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

"I feel as if you delegates may have completely misunderstood this bill. If anything, this bill is quite pro-capitalist, considering it declares that the state shall not deprive a person of his/her private property whether it be real, intangible, or... what did CP say?" The General's advisor whispers in his ear. "Chattel? What does that mean?" His advisor whispers in his ear again. "Okay... Well, regardless, it says the state cannot deprive a person if his/her private property.

"Personally, I don't think the author took into account that some nations have communist governments where private property is abolished entirely. I think he should make some amendments to this bill in order to include said communist governments instead of trying to enforce his capitalist ideals. In communist governments, all private property is seized from individuals by the state without due process of law.

"But of course, that is for the greater good of the people." The General straightens up his posture. "I think I'm done rambling on about my concerns. The author should take into account WA members who have either abolished private property, or seize it for the greater good of the nation."

"Gentlesir, I assure you, I took communist and socialist countries into consideration carefully. Neither states are barred from operating on collective property under this proposal. Such states may, indeed, deprive individuals of property. They may not, however, do it without due process of law. Which means every suffering individual robbed of their real property or fungible assets in the name of redistribution must be given the opportunity to have their claim litigated in whatever passes for a court of law and equity in that nation. Evidence must be presented, law must be examined, and process must be observed.

"When you are quite willing to read the text, I shall be waiting, honorable gentlesir."

[Calladan]

Okay - I have been out of circulation for a bit, so forgive me if this is not the latest version of the draft.

Defending the values that surround acquisition and retention of private property by private citizens as necessary component of a just society,

Still not sure why this is true :- some people are never going to be able to afford their own homes, and will require (what we refer to in Calladan as) social housing, or rented property. In fact, ensuring everyone has somewhere to live is a FAR more just society (in terms of social justice) than ensuring everyone can buy their own house.

The state shall not deprive an individual of real or chattel property without affording them their due process of law, without capricious or arbitrary application of law against persons.

Okay - here's where I get confused (and where the language is the main cause of my confusion).

The first clause suggests that the state shall not take property off people without affording them due process - that's fine. I have no problem with that.

However, from my understanding of grammar, the second part o the sentence can make the clause be read like this :-

"The state shall not deprive an individual real or chattel property without capricious or arbitrary application of law against persons"

Which can not possibly be what you meant. Because it means the state can't take property away from people without abusing the law to do it - and that kind of behaviour has NO place in a just society.

So - am I misunderstanding the grammar? Or has that been drafted very badly because it can be applied as I have read it?

The state shall not broadly deprive citizens of real, intangible, or chattel property, but, in affording owners of their due process, must discretely identify that property which is the subject of action.

So the state can only take distinctly identifiable property from a person, and must tell the owners before they do it? I can understand that. However you have switched from "individuals" to "citizens" -- that is a subtle but important different. If I own a house in Misthaven, but am not a citizen there, then this clause would not apply to me because I am not a citizen of Misthaven. So the state would not have to follow it.

The state shall likewise not, in enforcing the covenants of private persons, lend the force of law to deprive private persons of their property without affording them their due process of law.

Why would the state be involved in the contracts of private people? (Again - you have switched from citizens to people -- this makes it more general than the second clause and would apply to people who are not citizens of the country). Also (and I accept that the final clause - the chancery/sovereign clause - might deal with this) if you put the rights of the person above the rights of the state then people could be doing ANYTHING in their private property and the state could do nothing. There has to be something to take account of that - to let the state have the right to enforce the law and do law enforcement stuff and so on - otherwise it will pretty much be chaos.

The state’s actions shall solely be exempted for the purpose of taxation by legal tender, without capricious or unjustly arbitrary application of those policies intended to circumvent the aforementioned policies.

As I said in my previous comment - there HAVE to be other exceptions. It can't only be tax laws that can override the above rules. I realise there are privacy concerns to deal with, but if my government's police force/security service has a warrant signed off by a member of the Judicial Branch, then they have a right to spy on a private citizen regardless of where that citizen is and if this proposal would block that right then we are going to have a problem

Nothing herein shall be so interpreted as depriving the state of its sovereign jurisdiction to apply the virtues of chancery by and through the due process of law.

Given that I cannot find a single reference to "virtues of chancery" anywhere on the internet I can't even hazard a guess as to what this means. I am hoping it means we can, in fact, continue to police our citizens the way we normally would regardless of whether they are in private, rented, state owned or public housing. And that if Mrs Smith is beating her wife we can break down the door to their private house and arrest her (or at the very least stop her) without having to get a court order to gain access to the property to enter it first (because that would be utterly ridiculous).

So - yeah. It's safe to say I may have issues with this proposal

[The New World Trading Company]

Defending the values that surround acquisition and retention of private property by private citizens as necessary component of a just society,

Still not sure why this is true :- some people are never going to be able to afford their own homes, and will require (what we refer to in Calladan as) social housing, or rented property. In fact, ensuring everyone has somewhere to live is a FAR more just society (in terms of social justice) than ensuring everyone can buy their own house.

"If individuals can't acquire and retain property they have worked for because the government is taking it out from under them, gentlesir, there is no incentive to be productive with one's labor. Property is not solely a concept for living space, and I do not understand why you would restrict an interpretation thusly." Coddingston-Puddingsworth replies, busily tucking in to a rather unappetizing meal of pickled haddock, saltpork, and leafy greens topped with some syrupy concoction.

The state shall not deprive an individual of real or chattel property without affording them their due process of law, without capricious or arbitrary application of law against persons.

Okay - here's where I get confused (and where the language is the main cause of my confusion).

The first clause suggests that the state shall not take property off people without affording them due process - that's fine. I have no problem with that.

However, from my understanding of grammar, the second part o the sentence can make the clause be read like this :-

"The state shall not deprive an individual real or chattel property without capricious or arbitrary application of law against persons"

Which can not possibly be what you meant. Because it means the state can't take property away from people without abusing the law to do it - and that kind of behaviour has NO place in a just society.

So - am I misunderstanding the grammar? Or has that been drafted very badly because it can be applied as I have read it?

"Your second interpretation is the only reasonable, or even grammatically sound, interpretation, gentlesir. If you knew the answer, I wonder why you endeavored to ask."

The state shall not broadly deprive citizens of real, intangible, or chattel property, but, in affording owners of their due process, must discretely identify that property which is the subject of action.

So the state can only take distinctly identifiable property from a person, and must tell the owners before they do it? I can understand that. However you have switched from "individuals" to "citizens" -- that is a subtle but important different. If I own a house in Misthaven, but am not a citizen there, then this clause would not apply to me because I am not a citizen of Misthaven. So the state would not have to follow it.

"Finally! Something of value derived from this godforsaken place. Gentlesir, I am most grateful for your astute observation, and I shall write to my Lord Governor immediately, that he might consider such an alteration."

The state shall likewise not, in enforcing the covenants of private persons, lend the force of law to deprive private persons of their property without affording them their due process of law.

Why would the state be involved in the contracts of private people?

"A breach of contract is enforceable by courts. Otherwise, there would be no penalty to breaking any agreement, which would disincentivize organized arrangements for bargains and destablilize transactions involving complex services, future interests in goods, or nonfungible property."

(Again - you have switched from citizens to people -- this makes it more general than the second clause and would apply to people who are not citizens of the country).

"Quite so, yes. I shall include it in my correspondance with the Lord Governor."

Also (and I accept that the final clause - the chancery/sovereign clause - might deal with this) if you put the rights of the person above the rights of the state then people could be doing ANYTHING in their private property and the state could do nothing. There has to be something to take account of that - to let the state have the right to enforce the law and do law enforcement stuff and so on - otherwise it will pretty much be chaos.

"The state already has to take that into consideration with it's laws, gentlesir. In fact, nothing here prevents a state from taking all the privately held property in a state and nationalizing it. It merely requires that a court case of some manner for every such transaction be held. Whether the state wishes to organize that by one case per individual, or one case per item per individual, is up to that state. As the state retains the ability to create laws regarding property interests, the state will always have the power to dictate what individuals ultimately do with that property. This merely places a legal barrier to excessive use of that power." Coddingston-Puddingsworth's mustache quivered stickily with his crisp words.

The state’s actions shall solely be exempted for the purpose of taxation by legal tender, without capricious or unjustly arbitrary application of those policies intended to circumvent the aforementioned policies.

As I said in my previous comment - there HAVE to be other exceptions. It can't only be tax laws that can override the above rules. I realise there are privacy concerns to deal with, but if my government's police force/security service has a warrant signed off by a member of the Judicial Branch, then they have a right to spy on a private citizen regardless of where that citizen is and if this proposal would block that right then we are going to have a problem

"Name one property interest that citizens should not be afforded their due process in regards to, and I shall write an exception. Taxation, being necessary and proper for the state to function and society to operate in an organized manner, cannot be subject to a legal proceeding in the general course of events. This cannot be said for any other such action."

Nothing herein shall be so interpreted as depriving the state of its sovereign jurisdiction to apply the virtues of chancery by and through the due process of law.

Given that I cannot find a single reference to "virtues of chancery" anywhere on the internet I can't even hazard a guess as to what this means.

"Ambassador, did your diplomatic education not involve a healthy dose of history? The virtues of chancery are those equitable remedies that a court may apply where the rule of law does not itself produce a satisfactory result. Where a contract might be, by law, legal where one individual has traded away their family estate in fee simple absolute for a mere ha'penny, it would certainly be an unjust windfall for one party, and a dire failure by the other. Equitable remedies provide a means by which a court might order that the price for the property reflect fair market value. From my observation of your delegation, gentlesir, yours would be a nation most in favor of equity over law."

I am hoping it means we can, in fact, continue to police our citizens the way we normally would regardless of whether they are in private, rented, state owned or public housing.

"I cannot imagine whyever not, gentlesir. The right of exclusion has never been thought to consider right and lawful entry by agents of the state where the threshold for reasonable cause is met."

And that if Mrs Smith is beating her wife we can break down the door to their private house and arrest her (or at the very least stop her) without having to get a court order to gain access to the property to enter it first (because that would be utterly ridiculous).

"Mere entry into a property by state entities is not a deprivation of rights unless your nation so considers it to be. I highly doubt, based on the dangerously socialized method of supplying housing you previously mentioned, that your nation holds exclusion of land use so exalted as to exclude necessary police action."

[Calladan]

Still not sure why this is true :- some people are never going to be able to afford their own homes, and will require (what we refer to in Calladan as) social housing, or rented property. In fact, ensuring everyone has somewhere to live is a FAR more just society (in terms of social justice) than ensuring everyone can buy their own house.

"If individuals can't acquire and retain property they have worked for because the government is taking it out from under them, gentlesir, there is no incentive to be productive with one's labor. Property is not solely a concept for living space, and I do not understand why you would restrict an interpretation thusly." Coddingston-Puddingsworth replies, busily tucking in to a rather unappetizing meal of pickled haddock, saltpork, and leafy greens topped with some syrupy concoction.

I admit - I hadn't considered property to be anything other than homes. Which was somewhat wrong of me and I apologise for limiting it to that definition.

(Side note - if you are going to pretend this is the Queen's English, I should probably point out "labour" is spelt with a u in it ).

(Second site note - if you'd read my signature, you would realise I am a gentle lady, not a gentle sir. But I will let that go for now, because there are more important matters to deal with).

Okay - here's where I get confused (and where the language is the main cause of my confusion).

The first clause suggests that the state shall not take property off people without affording them due process - that's fine. I have no problem with that.

However, from my understanding of grammar, the second part o the sentence can make the clause be read like this :-

"The state shall not deprive an individual real or chattel property without capricious or arbitrary application of law against persons"

Which can not possibly be what you meant. Because it means the state can't take property away from people without abusing the law to do it - and that kind of behaviour has NO place in a just society.

So - am I misunderstanding the grammar? Or has that been drafted very badly because it can be applied as I have read it?

"Your second interpretation is the only reasonable, or even grammatically sound, interpretation, gentlesir. If you knew the answer, I wonder why you endeavored to ask."

So you mean it has been drafted very badly because it can be applied as I have read it? And if so may I suggest rewriting it so it CAN'T be applied like that, because I can think of several dozen governments who - on reading that clause - would think "huh - we are allowed to capriciously and arbitrarily apply law as we see fit - The WA said we can".

So the state can only take distinctly identifiable property from a person, and must tell the owners before they do it? I can understand that. However you have switched from "individuals" to "citizens" -- that is a subtle but important different. If I own a house in Misthaven, but am not a citizen there, then this clause would not apply to me because I am not a citizen of Misthaven. So the state would not have to follow it.

"Finally! Something of value derived from this godforsaken place. Gentlesir, I am most grateful for your astute observation, and I shall write to my Lord Governor immediately, that he might consider such an alteration."

Glad I can be of service

Why would the state be involved in the contracts of private people?

"A breach of contract is enforceable by courts. Otherwise, there would be no penalty to breaking any agreement, which would disincentivize organized arrangements for bargains and destablilize transactions involving complex services, future interests in goods, or nonfungible property."

Okay.

(Again - you have switched from citizens to people -- this makes it more general than the second clause and would apply to people who are not citizens of the country).

"Quite so, yes. I shall include it in my correspondance with the Lord Governor."

Okay dokay.

Also (and I accept that the final clause - the chancery/sovereign clause - might deal with this) if you put the rights of the person above the rights of the state then people could be doing ANYTHING in their private property and the state could do nothing. There has to be something to take account of that - to let the state have the right to enforce the law and do law enforcement stuff and so on - otherwise it will pretty much be chaos.

"The state already has to take that into consideration with it's laws, gentlesir. In fact, nothing here prevents a state from taking all the privately held property in a state and nationalizing it. It merely requires that a court case of some manner for every such transaction be held. Whether the state wishes to organize that by one case per individual, or one case per item per individual, is up to that state. As the state retains the ability to create laws regarding property interests, the state will always have the power to dictate what individuals ultimately do with that property. This merely places a legal barrier to excessive use of that power." Coddingston-Puddingsworth's mustache quivered stickily with his crisp words.

Yeah - that doesn't help. (see later for why).

As I said in my previous comment - there HAVE to be other exceptions. It can't only be tax laws that can override the above rules. I realise there are privacy concerns to deal with, but if my government's police force/security service has a warrant signed off by a member of the Judicial Branch, then they have a right to spy on a private citizen regardless of where that citizen is and if this proposal would block that right then we are going to have a problem

"Name one property interest that citizens should not be afforded their due process in regards to, and I shall write an exception. Taxation, being necessary and proper for the state to function and society to operate in an organized manner, cannot be subject to a legal proceeding in the general course of events. This cannot be said for any other such action."

Case 1 - The government suspect the citizens are making bombs in the house. The government obtains a duly authorised warrant from the judiciary to observe the house to see if this is in fact the case. The citizens can not be informed of this fact because secret surveillance kind of requires the subjects of said surveillance to be unaware of it going on.

Case 2 - The government suspect the citizens are plotting to rob a bank, or hack into a group of servers, or kidnap seven children to molest, rape and otherwise abuse them. They believe that not only are the two people in the house part of this plot, but they are in contact with other people involved. They obtain a duly authorised warrant to observe the house and intercept the communications within the house. The citizens within the house and not be informed of this fact because a) they are the subject of the surveillance and b) the purpose is to monitor their communications to find out who else is involved and arrest them as well.

Case 3 - A policeman has a very real and credible reason to believe Mrs Smith is beating the living crap out of her wife based on the noises coming out of the flat he is walking past. So he breaks down the door and storms the flat. He has no warrant, no authorisation - no nothing. He is acting on (what in Calladan is referred to as) probable cause. Again - there is no due process at this point : it is just his suspicions and there is the chance he is wrong. But if he has to stop, get in touch with his commanding officer, get an arrest warrant and then a search warrant and then break the door down there is every chance that Mrs Smith's wife could be dead.

In each of these cases the citizens are not permitted due process (as in they are informed of their rights and brought before a court/magistrate and given a lawyer) because the circumstances dictate otherwise. However in each of these cases the state is not acting in an unlawful, capricious or arbitrary manner - it is acting within the law.

So would your proposal permit that state of affairs to continue? Or would law and order break down?

(Having given it more thought I can think of several others - if someone smells gas coming from a house where the occupants are on holiday, the police/gas board should probably be permitted to break in to investigate the smell if it is deemed necessary otherwise KABOOM! etc, if there is a strange smell that could be a dead body coming from within a house...... well - you get the idea. I could go on, but I won't).

Given that I cannot find a single reference to "virtues of chancery" anywhere on the internet I can't even hazard a guess as to what this means.

"Ambassador, did your diplomatic education not involve a healthy dose of history? The virtues of chancery are those equitable remedies that a court may apply where the rule of law does not itself produce a satisfactory result. Where a contract might be, by law, legal where one individual has traded away their family estate in fee simple absolute for a mere ha'penny, it would certainly be an unjust windfall for one party, and a dire failure by the other. Equitable remedies provide a means by which a court might order that the price for the property reflect fair market value. From my observation of your delegation, gentlesir, yours would be a nation most in favor of equity over law."

I didn't so much get a diplomatic education as get hired for this job because My Tri-Arch read an essay on The Role of Government and thought I was remarkably eloquent and very good at arguing my position, even when I was told it was wrong. (Can you see a theme developing here?)

And actually, you are half right. While we are in favour of social justice and treating people fairly, when it comes down to it we put the rule of law above everything else. Because if you starting letting people decide what is right and wrong - if you start letting The Justices decide which laws apply and which laws don't based on their opinions and emotions rather than on laws and facts and evidence - then you have what is tantamount to a dictatorship and who wants that?

I am hoping it means we can, in fact, continue to police our citizens the way we normally would regardless of whether they are in private, rented, state owned or public housing.

"I cannot imagine whyever not, gentlesir. The right of exclusion has never been thought to consider right and lawful entry by agents of the state where the threshold for reasonable cause is met."

And that if Mrs Smith is beating her wife we can break down the door to their private house and arrest her (or at the very least stop her) without having to get a court order to gain access to the property to enter it first (because that would be utterly ridiculous).

"Mere entry into a property by state entities is not a deprivation of rights unless your nation so considers it to be. I highly doubt, based on the dangerously socialized method of supplying housing you previously mentioned, that your nation holds exclusion of land use so exalted as to exclude necessary police action."

Just checking. Because from some of the phrasing you used, it is hard to tell whether "a woman's home is her castle" (meaning no one has the right to enter without her permission) is the overriding principle, or even if a woman owns her own home (and we have private ownership, in case you were curious!) the said home is still subject to the laws of Calladan with all the responsibilities that entails.

Also (as a reminder) - gentle lady

[The New World Trading Company]

(Side note - if you are going to pretend this is the Queen's English, I should probably point out "labour" is spelt with a u in it ).

OOC: While this nation's RP'd motherland is similar to the British Empire of the early and mid 1700's, it is not identical to it. Mostly for ease of typing.

Case 1 - The government suspect the citizens are making bombs in the house. The government obtains a duly authorised warrant from the judiciary to observe the house to see if this is in fact the case. The citizens can not be informed of this fact because secret surveillance kind of requires the subjects of said surveillance to be unaware of it going on.

"Surveillance from a location off of one's property has never been considered, to my knowledge, gentlelady, a property right one may hold against the state. This example is wholly inapplicable, unless the state wishes to allow it as a property right to limit their own power."

Case 2 - The government suspect the citizens are plotting to rob a bank, or hack into a group of servers, or kidnap seven children to molest, rape and otherwise abuse them. They believe that not only are the two people in the house part of this plot, but they are in contact with other people involved. They obtain a duly authorised warrant to observe the house and intercept the communications within the house. The citizens within the house and not be informed of this fact because a) they are the subject of the surveillance and b) the purpose is to monitor their communications to find out who else is involved and arrest them as well.

"Acquiring a warrant is a part of due process, gentlelady." Coddingston-Puddingsworth rubbed his fat forehead with a handkerchief to sop up the sweat. It was exhausting, explaining the basics of law to those who should know better, after all.

Case 3 - A policeman has a very real and credible reason to believe Mrs Smith is beating the living crap out of her wife based on the noises coming out of the flat he is walking past. So he breaks down the door and storms the flat. He has no warrant, no authorisation - no nothing. He is acting on (what in Calladan is referred to as) probable cause. Again - there is no due process at this point : it is just his suspicions and there is the chance he is wrong. But if he has to stop, get in touch with his commanding officer, get an arrest warrant and then a search warrant and then break the door down there is every chance that Mrs Smith's wife could be dead.

"If the officer has legally defensible probably cause, good gentlelady, there is no violation of property rights. Officers of the law necessarily have some immunities to the exclusion of property under any legal system. Perhaps the only exception is a retroactive cause of action, where it is demonstrated by the aggrieved party that the cause was not sufficient to justify intrusion. In this case, due process is satisfied by hearing out the grievance and, if necessary, awarding damages for the intrusion."

In each of these cases the citizens are not permitted due process (as in they are informed of their rights and brought before a court/magistrate and given a lawyer) because the circumstances dictate otherwise. However in each of these cases the state is not acting in an unlawful, capricious or arbitrary manner - it is acting within the law.

"Gentlelady, I'm afraid your conception of property rights is painfully limited. No right to property is absolute, yet you argue as if they are. It is puzzling."

So would your proposal permit that state of affairs to continue? Or would law and order break down?

"The former."

I didn't so much get a diplomatic education as get hired for this job because My Tri-Arch read an essay on The Role of Government and thought I was remarkably eloquent and very good at arguing my position, even when I was told it was wrong. (Can you see a theme developing here?)

"Gentlelady, I assure you that I see your theme clearly."

And actually, you are half right. While we are in favour of social justice and treating people fairly, when it comes down to it we put the rule of law above everything else. Because if you starting letting people decide what is right and wrong - if you start letting The Justices decide which laws apply and which laws don't based on their opinions and emotions rather than on laws and facts and evidence - then you have what is tantamount to a dictatorship and who wants that?

"If the law generates an unjust remedy, it cannot be said that justice is done. I shudder to think of the inflexibility of a system which has no room for equity."

Just checking. Because from some of the phrasing you used, it is hard to tell whether "a woman's home is her castle" (meaning no one has the right to enter without her permission) is the overriding principle, or even if a woman owns her own home (and we have private ownership, in case you were curious!) the said home is still subject to the laws of Calladan with all the responsibilities that entails.

"Gentlelady, I again assure you that this is not how the rights of exclusivity work in property. If all individuals were to enforce utter exclusivity while violating the laws of the land, society would quickly disintegrate."

"And I am afraid I was not curious. I have no interest in the governance or cultures of those not of the King's rule. Anything less is utter barbarity." Coddingston-Puddingsworth sniffs at the thought.

[Calladan]

(snip)

So here's the thing :-

While you have dealt with most of my concerns to a reasonably satisfactory level, I have to say it would have been a great deal easier and probably quicker to sort all this out if the proposal has been written in a more..... user friendly manner.

And while, as many other Ambassadors have pointed out, it is not illegal to write it in whatever language you wish, I suspect I am not the only one who is going to read it and go "what the ever loving fuck are you talking about?" when you submit it and (should it get that far) if it gets to the floor for a vote.

There are also a lot of people here for whom English is not a first language - so if I am having troubles understanding some of what you are talking about, I would imagine it might go double for some other nations (without willing to patronise them of course - maybe I am wrong!)

However there is one last thing that I have to ask, because - quite honestly - it is the most terrifying part of the proposal.

From what I understand, this proposal would allow a government to unilaterally nationalise all private property? (You have said that is the case, yes?) And the term "property" in this proposal refers to anything that a citizen/person/individual might own? Ranging from a CD, to a car, to a house, to a boat, to their money, to a computer right up to an island?

Are there any safeguards to this? Does it have to be done with some kind of process of law? Do they have to compensate the person involved and does it have to be fair compensation (fair market value for the property)? Can the person refuse? Is there are a court of appeal?

Because if the government can simply sweep in and say "this is ours now - hand it over" that seems wrong on so many levels. And not something that My Tri-Arch, my government nor I could ever contemplate agreeing to.

[The New World Trading Company]

There are also a lot of people here for whom English is not a first language - so if I am having troubles understanding some of what you are talking about, I would imagine it might go double for some other nations (without willing to patronise them of course - maybe I am wrong!)

“Gentlelady, translators exist for a reason. I care not a whit for those who do not avail themselves of the necessities of international correspondence. Were it not a strange stroke of luck that you and others here have been civilized in speaking the King’s own tongue, I would have a translator here.” Coddington-Puddingsworth states, unaware of the Universal Translators humming away.

However there is one last thing that I have to ask, because - quite honestly - it is the most terrifying part of the proposal.

From what I understand, this proposal would allow a government to unilaterally nationalise all private property? (You have said that is the case, yes?) And the term "property" in this proposal refers to anything that a citizen/person/individual might own? Ranging from a CD, to a car, to a house, to a boat, to their money, to a computer right up to an island?

“Incorrect, as I thought you were aware. A unilateral nationalization would still deprive somebody of their due process. A state could nationalize every single piece of property, yes, but must do so in court, with every individual so affected being given the same legal process as if any other entity were depriving them of their property interests.”

“As I am told, this Assembly keeps company with several unsavory forms of government, some of which wholly outlaw private property and nationalize, or socialize, real property and fungible goods. To my knowledge, the World Assembly, for reasons beyond my understanding, wishes to preserve their ability to participate, despite such a backwards and insane methodology of property law. I could not ban such efforts, though it pains me not to. The best I can do to protect against this overreach is require every attempt at nationalization run through whatever official channels possible.”

“Of course, a state could decide to do away with any kind of recognition for infringing on property rights and simply steal property as they will. This sort of kleptocracy would surely collapse any state, so I am not terribly worried.”

Are there any safeguards to this? Does it have to be done with some kind of process of law? Do they have to compensate the person involved and does it have to be fair compensation (fair market value for the property)? Can the person refuse? Is there are a court of appeal?

“Existing legislation requires property taken be compensated for, which is why I excluded that facet.”

Because if the government can simply sweep in and say "this is ours now - hand it over" that seems wrong on so many levels. And not something that My Tri-Arch, my government nor I could ever contemplate agreeing to.

“Governments already have this power. And they exercise it freely. Eminent domain, socialization, nationalization, all of these exist and are used routinely. They serve essential functions in society, as otherwise, we might never be able to build or expand new roads, ports, bridges, or forts but for a stubborn holdout. Nor either could property held jointly by conflicting parties be partitioned by sale. Here, I provide a hurdle that lets victims of socialization and nationalization air their grievances and have the opportunity to resist as a matter of law.”

[The New World Trading Company]

"In light of the perception of issues regarding procedural due process, I have explicitly outlined remedies for violations."