Advertisement
by Bananaistan » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:22 am
by Thyerata » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:27 am
The Sheika wrote:Thyerata wrote:I'm not convinced because I *think* that for the resolution to be legal, every member state must be bound by every clause. I feel the need for a legality challenge...
I'll second for a legality a challenge. If I recall in recent weeks we had another proposal attempt to set a "price floor" using different monetary units. First, USD (which for all intents and purposes in the WA is fictional currency) then a different currency from a nation on NS that is not part of the WA. When the price floor was dropped, the idea of setting different standard for different development levels was brought up, which in the end was deemed illegal for being in violation of Resolution 2, Article 8; "Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State", with a further note from one of the members of the WA GenSec, "You may not apply different standards to developed and developing nations."
Link provided for reference:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=31828240#p31828240
by The Sheika » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:42 am
Thyerata wrote:
Challenge lodged. I hope you don't mind being named as a co-Challenger
viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=9&t=416426
by Thyerata » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:46 am
The Sheika wrote:Thyerata wrote:
Challenge lodged. I hope you don't mind being named as a co-Challenger
viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=9&t=416426
I don't mind being named, but I had figured it would be done here in thread as opposed to another thread.
by Altanni » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:45 am
If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument.
by Thyerata » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:48 am
Altanni wrote:If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument.
ooc// You really should have just posted your argument here since this is still just a draft. Slow your roll a bit next time with the challenges, bud.
by Jarish Inyo » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:01 pm
by Llorens » Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:42 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:Is the author going to answer my questions or just ignore them?
Also, the WA can not order business to do anything. The WA doesn't have the authority to regulate any business. As such, the Empire will never force an internet provider to give its product away for free. Especially since it's a luxury and if an individual can't afford to pay for said luxury, they can't probably afford to buy a device to use the internet, which is also a luxury.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Equal before the law means that each nation possesses equivalent legal rights. Expansion to 'we must pretend all nations are the same' would be absurdist theatre.
by Jarish Inyo » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:50 am
by Llorens » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:16 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:The internet is not an essential resource. It is a luxury, just like tvs, cars, cells phones, computer, laptops and cable/satellite services. People were and able to connect to the world without it.
And you've yet to answer my questions. So here they are again. And a new one.
1) Hiw is this an international issue?
2) Why should the government subsidize a luxury for people who can't afford it?
3) Why should a nation pay for another's internet infrastructure?
4) How is this not contradicting GAR 68?
5) Why should an isp lose profits to provide services to those who can't afford it?
Come to think about it, can the WA charge member nations fees as it can be seen as a tax, which the WA is prohibited from doing so? Can redistribution of wealth be seen as an ideological ban? After all, truly capitalist countries wouldn't be able to follow their idologies. And how do you think the Internet Funding Authority is going to collect said fees if nations refuse to pay the fees?
Also, you're quote is doesn't settle the legality of some of the provisions of you proposal.
Llorens wrote:Also, it should be noted that the following is the exact wording of the Optionality rule:GA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The optionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.
Not a single clause "recommends" or "urges" members states to abide by it. No nation can ignore this resolution as all member states are bound to it in some way:
1. Nations with a GDP per capita below 40,000 SMU are able to have part of their Internet construction and maintenance project covered.
2. Nations with a GDP per capita above 40,000 SMU must fully fund their own project.
3. Nations with a GDP per capita above 80,000 SMU must provide some funding to the Internet Funding Authority to aid other nations eligible for full or partial project subsidisation.
by Jarish Inyo » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:10 am
by Bananaistan » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:32 am
by Jarish Inyo » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:42 am
by Araraukar » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:05 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Llorens » Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:26 pm
by Llorens » Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:41 pm
Jarish Inyo wrote:You are banning the very basic tenets of capitalism. Which do not work with redistributing of wealth.
The WA can't tax the citizens of any member state. Funding for your little scheme here would come directly from the citizens of each member state. And from your little explanation of how it works, anyone making 80,000 smu would have to pay into your Internet Funding Authority. Hence, this is illegal.
1) The internet is not an essential resource. It's a luxury.
2) The internet is not an essential resource. It's a luxury.
3) The internet is not an essential resource. It's a luxury.
Repeating something doesn't make it true. As it stands, you do not have any real argument to why this is an international issue, why taxpayers have to subsidize a luxury for those who can't afford and for other nations.
4) So, you admit this is in contradiction of GAR 68, which gives nations the right to decide their own economic policies, which includes commerce. Hence making it illegal again.
5) The internet is not an essential resource. People should not be entitled to a luxury in any way. People can get the internet if they can afford it. The business man that paid for the infrastructure and pays to maintain said infrastructure does deserve to make excessive profits from his investment and business. It's the capitalist way. It's the core tenet of the ideology. And why the question about an ideology ban.
I read the legal chance. Your argument doesn't necessarily mean that its legal.
by States of Glory WA Office » Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:42 pm
Llorens wrote:
It stands for Standard Monetary Unit, which is the international currency measurement used in the World Census for Average Income. Therefore, I assumed that it was the correct measurement to use in WA proposals.
by Llorens » Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:56 pm
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Llorens wrote:It stands for Standard Monetary Unit, which is the international currency measurement used in the World Census for Average Income. Therefore, I assumed that it was the correct measurement to use in WA proposals.
OOC: The World Census doesn't apply here. As far as the WA is concerned, the SMU doesn't exist.
by States of Glory WA Office » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:04 pm
Llorens wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: The World Census doesn't apply here. As far as the WA is concerned, the SMU doesn't exist.
OOC: Sure it does, the World Census is another in-game component that provides extensive data on nations. To say anything else than that they are inextricably linked would be absurd.
by Llorens » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:21 pm
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Llorens wrote:OOC: Sure it does, the World Census is another in-game component that provides extensive data on nations. To say anything else than that they are inextricably linked would be absurd.
OOC: GA role-play is only linked with game mechanics insofar as resolutions have small statistical effects on nations. How else are nations allowed to answer Issues contrary to GA resolutions?
by States of Glory WA Office » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:47 pm
Llorens wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: GA role-play is only linked with game mechanics insofar as resolutions have small statistical effects on nations. How else are nations allowed to answer Issues contrary to GA resolutions?
OOC: That doesn't justify not being able to use those stats as a basis for formulating WA proposals, even if they have virtually no effect on anyone's stats or have any binding effect on the way they choose to run their country.
by Araraukar » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:49 pm
Llorens wrote:OOC: That doesn't justify not being able to use those stats as a basis for formulating WA proposals, even if they have virtually no effect on anyone's stats or have any binding effect on the way they choose to run their country.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:56 pm
by Jarish Inyo » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:22 pm
No, I can't control the internal taxation of a country. The monetary contribution can be generated in other ways and doesn't necessarily equal a tax hike for anyone. These two things are disconnected.
Honestly, the only reason you aren't reading my arguments is because of how tied up you are in your own preconceptions of this topic, in fact, you have not justified why the internet is a luxury at all, apart from saying we could live without it (and also retreat decades in technological advancement).
Please read GAR #68; it says that commerce should not be restricted unless it poses as an extreme hazard or was restricted by previous legislation (the former of which applies). Otherwise, that would be a clear ideological violation if it explicitly enforced free trade and deregulation.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement