Democratic Minimum Spending Act [CLOSED]

[NewWashington]

General Assembly Proposal
ID: newwashington_1514431120

Democratic Minimum Spending Act

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Newwashington
Democratic Minimum Spending Act
Inspired by Worldly Debate Region Legislation, Bill No. R.A-R417
Co-Authors: Vovodoco & Lt Col Tahir Hussain

Proposal

WA General Assembly,

Understanding that the goal to unite revolves around cooperation and collaboration.

Observing that each member nation harbors its own goals and its own visions.

Realizing that for member nations to simultaneously pursue their own goals and cooperate with others, funds must be raised.

Further Understanding that the only functions of government that can logically be demanded to maintain a minimum spending is defense, foreign aid, and a democratically controlled slush fund.

Hereby:

1. - On March 20th, June 21st, September 22st, December 21nd, each member nation will submit what they believe to be an appropriate GDP tax for the following types of programs to their regional WA Delegate of government: Defense-to protect us from war, Environmental Protection-to invest in green technology, Domestic Aid-to provide aid to the impoverished and endangered member nations WITHIN REGION, Foreign Aid-to provide aid to those in impoverished/war- torn member nations of alliance OUTSIDE REGION, Discretionary Spending- to allow regional officers flexibility in adjusting to unforeseeable events and needs. This slush fund can only be spent when democratically prompted by appropriate legislation from WITHIN REGION.

2. - Exactly one week after submission, there will be an approval session, in which case the regional WA Delegate will approve/disapprove of member nations' most sound GDP tax budgets. The budgets that receive disapproval will be eligible one additional chance to be revised for a second submission to the Delegate. Should the Delegate disapprove of the budget draft a consecutive time, the budget draft issued by that member nation will be taken out of consideration, however, there must be a budget in place for member nations to meet quarterly demands, in which case, should all member nations in a region either refuse to submit/be denied their drafts' passage, the Delegate must construct a reasonable budget in correlation with all member nation economies, of which will become the recognized and mandated budget of all member nations within the region.

3. - The budgets approved/mandated by Delegate, member nations will abide by the spending requirements.

4. - This proposal establishes that the appointment of a designated Treasury Secretary within regions where member nations exist, and held by a member nation only be mandatory for the purposes of both overseeing this financial process, and ensuring that the regulations above are upheld.

Noting:

1. - Only member nations of the World Assembly will adhere to the regulations of this proposal, therefore, all nations outside of the World Assembly will not intervene, or be held accountable in the budgeting processes of member nations within regions, worldwide, hence forth, effective in the hopeful passage of this proposal.

Concluding this Proposal,
WA Delegate & State Secretary, NewWashington
Worldly Debate Region est. 2017

[The Candy Of Bottles]

OOC: First off, kind of pointless to debate something that's already been submitted. Second, Illegal. Metagaming, Real world references, branding... Probably more that I'm just not seeing off the bat, but even just one of those is enough to get this held. The whole proposal is likely DOA to be honest.

[Wallenburg]

No draft, and illegal for game mechanics and contradiction violations. No support.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Presumably, you don't understand what these rules tag lines mean. To explain some of them and their general meaning: game mechanics, contradiction, branding, and metagaming.

(1) Your proposal would create mechanisms which would require a change in the game's coding. That is not something the World Assembly can do. (2) Similarly, your proposal would create a requirement which violates the explicit reservation requirements in GA 17 WA General Fund. We have an interest in preventing extremely confusing legal codes with implicit amendment, so that too is prohibited. (3) The World Assembly is not an advertisement for your nation, your region, or your region-mates. That is why you are prohibited by branding your proposal. (4) The World Assembly is an in-character organisation. Your proposal treats NationStates as if it were a game, which is out-of-character. That is prohibited.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This draft is against the WA rules for several reasons. Firstly, you cannot mention any real world dates in a proposa, as not all nations exist in the same time period. Secondly, budget spending is dictated by how a player answers issues, not by the WA, so a proposal cannot directly affect that. Thirdly, this proposal contradicts a General Assembly Resolutions, specifically #17 - WA general fund. However, don't be discouraged from drafting just because your first proposal doesn't work out.)

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Oh no, not again. Please submit a draft to the forums before throwing it into the Proposals pile, otherwise posting it here is entirely pointless, as they cannot be edited after submission.

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: This draft is against the WA rules for several reasons. Firstly, you cannot mention any real world dates in a proposa, as not all nations exist in the same time period. Secondly, budget spending is dictated by how a player answers issues, not by the WA, so a proposal cannot directly affect that. Thirdly, this proposal contradicts a General Assembly Resolutions, specifically #17 - WA general fund. However, don't be discouraged from drafting just because your first proposal doesn't work out.)

OOC
Actually, using RL dates -- rather than specifically named days such as, for example, Armistice Day -- is legal, not only by past precedentary ruling but also due to GA Resolution #88, clause 2. It can simply be presumed that when the Gnomes translate the languages in which proposals are written IC for the benefit of diplomats & governments unfamiliar with those tongues they convert any dates (or other units of measurement) involved to appropriate ones as well. The fact that we see dates in a RL calendar here, just like the fact that we see all of the proposals as written in English, is thus merely an OOC standardization.

[Wallenburg]

(OOC: This draft is against the WA rules for several reasons. Firstly, you cannot mention any real world dates in a proposa, as not all nations exist in the same time period. Secondly, budget spending is dictated by how a player answers issues, not by the WA, so a proposal cannot directly affect that. Thirdly, this proposal contradicts a General Assembly Resolutions, specifically #17 - WA general fund. However, don't be discouraged from drafting just because your first proposal doesn't work out.)

OOC
Actually, using RL dates -- rather than specifically named days such as, for example, Armistice Day -- is legal, not only by past precedentary ruling but also due to GA Resolution #88, clause 2. It can simply be presumed that when the Gnomes translate the languages in which proposals are written IC for the benefit of diplomats & governments unfamiliar with those tongues they convert any dates (or other units of measurement) involved to appropriate ones as well. The fact that we see dates in a RL calendar here, just like the fact that we see all of the proposals as written in English, is thus merely an OOC standardization.

GA#88 does not cover RL dates. They are not units of measurement.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Actually, using RL dates -- rather than specifically named days such as, for example, Armistice Day -- is legal, not only by past precedentary ruling but also due to GA Resolution #88, clause 2. It can simply be presumed that when the Gnomes translate the languages in which proposals are written IC for the benefit of diplomats & governments unfamiliar with those tongues they convert any dates (or other units of measurement) involved to appropriate ones as well. The fact that we see dates in a RL calendar here, just like the fact that we see all of the proposals as written in English, is thus merely an OOC standardization.

GA#88 does not cover RL dates. They are not units of measurement.

Calendar systems, as they measure the passage of time, fall within "systems of measurement" not only by past ruling but also by common sense.

[Freiesterre]

"This violates national sovereignty on so many levels the Commonwealth will never support a tax imposed by the World Assembly!" - Leopold Organa, Diplomat of Freiesterre

OOC: This also changes the game rules which is not allowed

[Wallenburg]

GA#88 does not cover RL dates. They are not units of measurement.

Calendar systems, as they measure the passage of time, fall within "systems of measurement" not only by past ruling but also by common sense.

My eyesight must be going, because I can't see any reference to "systems of measurement" in GA#88, nor any reference to calendars in this proposal.

[Dirty Americans]

Calendar systems, as they measure the passage of time, fall within "systems of measurement" not only by past ruling but also by common sense.

I think it is stretching it a bit to think of a "calendar" as a unit of measurement, as the calendar is static and most measurement systems are relative. You can, for example divide a planet into 360 degrees (relative) but the Greenwich Meridian is static. It's not even a proper measurement ... the "distance" between Jan 1 and Jan 1 depends on such factors as whether there is a leap year, some Pope switched the calendars on you and so forth.

Now if you want a measurement, that is possible. You define (no really I don't think you need to define it) the Fiscal New Year and make all requirements relative to the start of the Fiscal New Year. My Fiscal New Year could be January; yours could be September. See? Wonders in a bottle.

[Bears Armed]

Calendar systems, as they measure the passage of time, fall within "systems of measurement" not only by past ruling but also by common sense.

My eyesight must be going, because I can't see any reference to "systems of measurement" in GA#88, nor any reference to calendars in this proposal.

GA #88 refers to units of measurement. Units of measurement are, by obvious definition, parts of a system of measurement.
Therefore GA #88, by protecting the right to use any units of measurement, must also protect the right to use any system of measurement.
Calendars are systems of measurement, for the passage of time, so GA #88 must protect the right to use whatever calendars one wishes.

[Tinfect]

I think it is stretching it a bit to think of a "calendar" as a unit of measurement, as the calendar is static and most measurement systems are relative.

OOC:
Given the fact that even today we can't seem to agree on using one calendar, much less historically, that's bullshit and you know it.

You can, for example divide a planet into 360 degrees (relative) but the Greenwich Meridian is static. It's not even a proper measurement ... the "distance" between Jan 1 and Jan 1 depends on such factors as whether there is a leap year, some Pope switched the calendars on you and so forth.

So, what you're saying is that a Calendar... can be used... to measure time? My god, if only there was a word for such a thing that could be used to measure other things!

[Dirty Americans]

So, what you're saying is that a Calendar... can be used... to measure time? My god, if only there was a word for such a thing that could be used to measure other things!

No I am saying that a year measures time; a month measures time; just as degrees measures circumferences. But a specific date is a fixed position; not a "measurement." This is a dangerous surface of thin ice here because there is no difference between referencing specific date references and say specific currency references (because isn't currency a measurement?). This could seriously change the nature of all future resolutions in NationStates FOREVER and not for the better.

[Tinfect]

No I am saying that a year measures time; a month measures time; just as degrees measures circumferences. But a specific date is a fixed position; not a "measurement." This is a dangerous surface of thin ice here because there is no difference between referencing specific date references and say specific currency references (because isn't currency a measurement?). This could seriously change the nature of all future resolutions in NationStates FOREVER and not for the better.

OOC:
'A meter isn't a measurement, it's a fixed distance between two points.' We're not talking about specific dates, we're talking about calendar systems. When it hits January 1st 2018 in Kiribati it'll still be December 31st 2017 in California. A Calendar Year on earth means jack-dick on Mars, which has a Solar Year of about 668 Martian Days.

References to specific currencies are branding, and illegal on that grounds to begin with, and currency is fucking Market Magic^TM these days, and doesn't seem to be much of anything, much less a measurement.

[Wallenburg]

My eyesight must be going, because I can't see any reference to "systems of measurement" in GA#88, nor any reference to calendars in this proposal.

GA #88 refers to units of measurement. Units of measurement are, by obvious definition, parts of a system of measurement.
Therefore GA #88, by protecting the right to use any units of measurement, must also protect the right to use any system of measurement.
Calendars are systems of measurement, for the passage of time, so GA #88 must protect the right to use whatever calendars one wishes.

Calendars don't measure time...

[Bears Armed]

I've just raised this point in the GenSec forum, so we'll see whether there's a consensus on the matter there.

[Araraukar]

I've just raised this point in the GenSec forum, so we'll see whether there's a consensus on the matter there.

OOC: Gee, that's totally helpful for us non-GenSec peeps. Unless you were intending to post that thread in the visible part of your forum eventually.

[Bears Armed]

I've just raised this point in the GenSec forum, so we'll see whether there's a consensus on the matter there.

OOC: Gee, that's totally helpful for us non-GenSec peeps. Unless you were intending to post that thread in the visible part of your forum eventually.

I was presuming that when we've finished discussing the matter we'd tell the rest of you how we're going to handle this point in future.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Gee, that's totally helpful for us non-GenSec peeps. Unless you were intending to post that thread in the visible part of your forum eventually.

I was presuming that when we've finished discussing the matter we'd tell the rest of you how we're going to handle this point in future.

OOC: So you're talking about a possible future legality effect of an existing resolution without any input from the community? Is this you raising a challenge? Shouldn't all challenge threads be posted on the regular GA forum?

[Bears Armed]

It's me trying to find out if GenSec -- whose other members hadn't commented on the point in this thread -- already agrees on an interpretation.

[Araraukar]

It's me trying to find out if GenSec -- whose other members hadn't commented on the point in this thread -- already agrees on an interpretation.

OOC: And will there be an official ruling somewhere that we can see, too?

[Bananaistan]

OOC: There's no need for a ruling on the matter. Modly precedent says days and months are OK. BA's points in this thread reflect this. I see no reason to change it.

[Separatist Peoples]

GA #88 refers to units of measurement. Units of measurement are, by obvious definition, parts of a system of measurement.
Therefore GA #88, by protecting the right to use any units of measurement, must also protect the right to use any system of measurement.
Calendars are systems of measurement, for the passage of time, so GA #88 must protect the right to use whatever calendars one wishes.

Calendars don't measure time...

They kind of do. They quantify time in days, weeks, months, and years.

OOC: There's no need for a ruling on the matter. Modly precedent says days and months are OK. BA's points in this thread reflect this. I see no reason to change it.

^