[ABANDONED] Internet Act - Someone Else Can Take This

[Bananaistan]

"What the fizz is an SMU? How much is one worth in £sd?"

- Brian

[Thyerata]

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

Challenge lodged. I hope you don't mind being named as a co-Challenger

viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=9&t=416426

[The Sheika]

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.

[Thyerata]

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.

GenSec policy requires a separate thread. I can't remember if they post the opinions in the challenge thread and the draft thread, or just the challenge thread

[Altanni]

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.

[Thyerata]

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.

I thought it was fully drafted

[Altanni]

ooc// The author said earlier today they'd still be seeking criticism and advice on this, so I doubt this is really their final draft.

[Jarish Inyo]

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 are also luxuries.

[Llorens]

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.

The internet is an essential resource in our modern society in order to connect with the rest of the world. By no means is it a luxury that greedy businesspeople should be excessively profiting from, especially at the hands of the least privileged people.

I'm not gonna bother quoting everyone, but to address the concerns made about the legality of this bill in terms of some clauses applying to only certain nations that fall within certain criteria:

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.

[Jarish Inyo]

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]

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.

OOC: I hope you understand that the World Assembly obviously can't enforce any laws on nations as it is basically a big roleplay.

No, an ideological ban would be if I was banning the stock market or people from owning land, which I see as being clear, significant, indirect threats to certain political ideologies. Otherwise, almost any bill, especially those under Human Rights, would be seen as suppressing the ideology of fascism and, therefore, illegal. In addition to this, the World Assembly is only banned from affecting internal taxation according to GAR #17. Evidently, you cannot be convinced that the Internet is an essential resource for creating interconnected communities because, you know, human progress and all.

1) Because the Internet is an essential resource that all people should be entitled to as stated above.
2) Because the Internet is an essential resource that all people should be entitled to as stated above.
3) Because the Internet is an essential resource that all people should be entitled to as stated above.
4) I would classify the restriction of Internet access as an extreme hazard that warrants the restriction of commerce, though it could also be argued that increasing Internet access is actually doing the opposite by allowing more people to become involved in commerce, defined as the "sale, production, and consumption of a product or service".
5) Because the Internet is an essential resource that all people should be entitled to as stated above, at least largely regardless of wealth. Businesspeople don't deserve to make excessive profits from an essential service.

In relation to the legality of this proposal, this is the response I gave on the legal challenge thread:

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.

[Jarish Inyo]

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.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This may have been missed:

"What the fizz is an SMU? How much is one worth in £sd?"

- Brian

[Jarish Inyo]

OOC: This may have been missed:

"What the fizz is an SMU? How much is one worth in £sd?"

- Brian

I could be wrong, but I think it's 1 £sd.

[Araraukar]

OOC: To the author, keep the most recent draft unspoilered in the first post. I keep clicking the thread and thinking you haven't updated it since I last commented on it, because of no visible draft.

[Llorens]

"What the fizz is an SMU? How much is one worth in £sd?"

- Brian

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.

[Llorens]

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.

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.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"What the fizz is an SMU? How much is one worth in £sd?"

- Brian

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.

[Llorens]

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.

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.

[States of Glory WA Office]

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.

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?

[Llorens]

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?

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.

[States of Glory WA Office]

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.

OOC: If that is so, why has no passed resolution used Standard Monetary Units? There have been over 400 of them; don't you think that someone would have done it by now?

[Araraukar]

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.

OOC: Gameside things are parts of the game called NationStates. That's why mentioning them in proposal text counts as metagaming (treating the game as a game) violations. That's why you can't mention Security Council in proposals either. As far as the in-character part of the WA (General Assembly) is concerned, the game doesn't exist.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Beyond the fact that this proposal notes non-existent monetary units, we oppose this kind of government intervention in the economy. The incredible risks of granting a single agency or organisation absolutely enormous discretion and resources, to us, seems ridiculous. Power held in such a manner with such control over information itself would likely risk the free society.", says Elsie.

"We are opposed to this proposal, as we are opposed to this absurd open-ended tax on member nations, as well as the foolishness of a tax on capital and investment itself, serving only to weaken the ability for nations to create wealth and expand their economies. We shall campaign against this proposal, organise resistance against it, and if it comes to a vote, cast our 350-vote ballot against."

[Jarish Inyo]

Let the author keep his non-existent monetary units. It means that his WA agency would never be funded.

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.

Funding for the government comes from some form of taxes. Whether that is taxing the citizens, business, imports or exports. So, funding your Internet Funding Authority does tax the citizens of a nation.

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).

And you have not justified that the Internet is an essential resource for the average citizen. But to justify why the internet is a luxury, lets look at the fact that their are cultures in the RL that doesn't use the internet. And some of those cultures run successful businesses without the internet. There are nations in the real world where the citizens have no or limited access to the internet and have successful citizens and businesses with out the internet.

Lets not forget that their are generations of successful people that went to school, went to work and created multi-national companies without the internet.

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.

I've read it. Citizens having to pay for their own internet does not pose as an extreme hazard in anyway. But please, explain how the average citizen having to pay for a service to watch porn, watch kitten videos, and download movies and music poses an extreme economic hazard? Giving free services to those who can't afford seems more of an extreme economic hazard. After all, it either passes the cost onto paying customers or the isp losses money, means they have less funds to employ people or to maintain and expend their networks.