[DEFEATED] Sensible limits on Industry Act

[Araraukar]

OOC: As someone who subscribes to the theory that The Joker is aware of his status as a fictional character and that's why he does all of his crazy things: Because it entertains his reader and he's not hurting "real" people I have to ask: Canot two things be true at once?

OOC: I know only that if we don't stop the threadjack, we're going to attract bolded red text telling us to do so.

---

Sensible Limits on Industry

OOC: Sensible Limits on Hunting, only for a corporation hunting season, eh?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Corporations only exist by grant of authority from the state to exist. Thus, states already have the power to force dissolution of corporations that violate the law or exceed the ambit of their authority. Why, then, need we codify it internationally?"

[Islands of unity]

OOC
Also, there's no such category as 'Legal Regulation - Strong'. under current rules. 'Regulation' has only as areas of effect, not strengths, and its 'Legal' AoE refers specifically to regulating the practice of Law as an industry.

Here’s a suggested re-draft.

Sensible Limits on Industry
Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing that privately-owned businesses might prioritize profits above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,
Recognizing also that state-owned businesses, especially ones whose managers face potential punishment if they fail to meet quotas, might likewise prioritize output of goods and services above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,
and
Believing that the health, safety, and well-being of people and of the environment should receive reasonable protection;

Hereby,
1). Authorizes member nations to shut-down any privately-owned business operations within their territories if those operations unreasonably impinge on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment;
2). Requires that member nations allow their state-owned industries to act only in ways that do not impinge unreasonably on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment, and must take these needs properly into consideration when setting any targets for those industries;
3). Requires each member nation to establish a set of standards for these matters, subject to any restrictions set by earlier GA resolutions that are still force, that applies equally to all businesses and industries operating in a given field of activity within that nation regardless of its ownership.

ooc: I do like this draft, am I able to use it as a base for my next edit? And if I do will it require me to list you as a co-author if I submit this to the WA?

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Also, there's no such category as 'Legal Regulation - Strong'. under current rules. 'Regulation' has only as areas of effect, not strengths, and its 'Legal' AoE refers specifically to regulating the practice of Law as an industry.

Here’s a suggested re-draft.

Sensible Limits on Industry

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing that privately-owned businesses might prioritize profits above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,
Recognizing also that state-owned businesses, especially ones whose managers face potential punishment if they fail to meet quotas, might likewise prioritize output of goods and services above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,
and
Believing that the health, safety, and well-being of people and of the environment should receive reasonable protection;

Hereby,
1). Authorizes member nations to shut-down any privately-owned business operations within their territories if those operations unreasonably impinge on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment;
2). Requires that member nations allow their state-owned industries to act only in ways that do not impinge unreasonably on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment, and must take these needs properly into consideration when setting any targets for those industries;
3). Requires each member nation to establish a set of standards for these matters, subject to any restrictions set by earlier GA resolutions that are still force, that applies equally to all businesses and industries operating in a given field of activity within that nation regardless of its ownership.

ooc: I do like this draft, am I able to use it as a base for my next edit?

Yes, that's what it's for.

And if I do will it require me to list you as a co-author if I submit this to the WA?

No, in my case I'd only ask for co-author credit if I was contributing IC rather than OOC. (But asking this is generally a good idea, because other potential helpers might feel differently about such matters...)

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Corporations only exist by grant of authority from the state to exist. Thus, states already have the power to force dissolution of corporations that violate the law or exceed the ambit of their authority. Why, then, need we codify it internationally?"

This. I don't think the OP has even a rudimentary understanding of corporate law. The state has the power to grant and revoke corporate charters. The power to create here implies the power to destroy. The nations which have (stupidly) limited themselves to not have that power, would, if they had it, simply fail to exercise it.

EDIT: Phone typo

[Canadaiana]

While our government appreciates international laws that degrade corporate power, we found this proposal lacking as corporations are already creatures of the states that they are incorporated in and can be disbanded by them, even if a nation has prevented themselves from doing so through constitutional means.

A better proposal would be one that regulates and guarantees the right of nations to seize assets within their borders of a corporation that is incorporated in another country, regardless of the terms of any trade agreement signed between said countries.

[Aclion]

I don't see any mandate.

[Union of Rehands]

]Rehadina agrees fully

[Islands of unity]

Sensible Limits on Industry
Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing that privately-owned businesses might prioritize profits above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,

Recognizing also that state-owned businesses, especially ones whose managers face potential punishment if they fail to meet quotas, might likewise prioritize output of goods and services above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,

and

Believing that the health, safety, and well-being of people and of the environment should receive reasonable protection;

Hereby,
1). Authorizes member nations to Involuntarily Dissolve any privately-owned business operations within their territories if those operations unreasonably impinge on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment;

2). Allows member nations to seize the assets of any privately-owned business that unreasonably impinges on the health, safety, and well-being of the people or of the environment provided that those assets be sold in order to reimburse the shareholders and employees of the Dissolved company;

3). Requires that member nations allow their state-owned industries to act only in ways that do not impinge unreasonably on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment, and must take these needs properly into consideration when setting any targets for those industries;

4). Requires each member nation to establish a set of standards for these matters, subject to any restrictions set by earlier GA resolutions that are still in force, that applies equally to all businesses and industries operating in a given field of activity within that nation regardless of its ownership.

[Araraukar]

Sensible Limits on Industry
Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing that privately-owned businesses might prioritize profits above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,

Recognizing also that state-owned businesses, especially ones whose managers face potential punishment if they fail to meet quotas, might likewise prioritize output of goods and services above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,

and

Believing that the health, safety, and well-being of people and of the environment should receive reasonable protection;

Hereby,
1). Authorizes member nations to Involuntarily Dissolve any privately-owned business operations within their territories if those operations unreasonably impinge on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment;

2). Allows member nations to seize the assets of any privately-owned business that unreasonably impinges on the health, safety, and well-being of the people or of the environment provided that those assets be sold in order to reimburse the shareholders and employees of the Dissolved company;

3). Requires that member nations allow their state-owned industries to act only in ways that do not impinge unreasonably on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment, and must take these needs properly into consideration when setting any targets for those industries;

4). Requires each member nation to establish a set of standards for these matters, subject to any restrictions set by earlier GA resolutions that are still in force, that applies equally to all businesses and industries operating in a given field of activity within that nation regardless of its ownership.

OOC: Put new drafts in the first post, spoilering the old ones (preferably after the current one, for ease of quoting). People are going to assume the first post draft is the current one, and comment on it.

[South Ccanda]

I cant say that I necessarily agree that member nations can just dissolve businesses for any reason. i would be on agreement for heavy fines to any business that infringes on these laws. Take down clause 1 and 2

Also, infringe (in my opinion) would be a better term rather impinge.
As it is, if this proposal is submitted, i will not approve and vote AGAINST it.

[Australian rePublic]

I don't necassirly agree with this, and think there are better ways of dealing with this

[Tyrgaard]

Privately owned? What's that.

[Arabic Khemed]

Yes, I would definitely approve this Resolution. However, checking it to see if it clashes with any previous Resolutions is a good idea(I've tripped up on that myself before:P)

[Daniamborpriseahlane Peninsula]

I support this

[Islands of unity]

I have just submitted the bill, where do i go from here?

[Kenmoria]

I have just submitted the bill, where do i go from here?

(OOC: You have had this proposal drafted for less than a week. That is much less time than is generally required for a draft to reach a submittable standard. Several players here have brought up issues with the draft that haven’t fully been addressed. I recommend returning this to the drafting stage. If you won’t do this, then all you can now do is campaign and hope this reaches quorum then passes.)

[Araraukar]

I have just submitted the bill, where do i go from here?

OOC: Go to the page of your submitted proposal and click "Withdraw". That takes it out of the submissions queue, and then you can resume rewriting it here.

[Islands of unity]

I have just submitted the bill, where do i go from here?

OOC: Go to the page of your submitted proposal and click "Withdraw". That takes it out of the submissions queue, and then you can resume rewriting it here.

I'm fairly happy with how the bill is currently.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Also, your tag should say [SUBMITTED] not [DRAFT] if this proposal has been entered into the queue. I second what Arakaur wrote, because a proposal isn’t very likely to be successful if has been rushed to submission. As the GA gleefully chants, it is a marathon and not a sprint.)

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

I think that the line saying the government can revoke private own businesses is a little extreme, with the wording of impingement on health and safety of people. Against.

[Wallenburg]

"Oh," says Ogenbond as his eyes scan the text. "Oh!" again, taking on a tone of fascination. He continues reading. "Ohhhh yes, I'm getting the chills, ambassador! The writing is crude but the idea, oh I hadn't even dreamed of putting it before the World Assembly! I like this. I like this very much."

[Araraukar]

"I like this very much."

OOC: To author: ^that means that it can be abused to high heaven by nations with a certain mindset, without even needing to resort to what's known as "creative compliance".

[Wallenburg]

"I like this very much."

OOC: To author: ^that means that it can be abused to high heaven by nations with a certain mindset, without even needing to resort to what's known as "creative compliance".

OOC: Not quite. It means that Ogenbond's communist tendencies are showing.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not quite. It means that Ogenbond's communist tendencies are showing.

OOC: Like I said, him liking it doesn't bode well...

---

2). Allows member nations to seize the assets of any privately-owned business that unreasonably impinges on the health, safety, and well-being of the people or of the environment provided that those assets be sold in order to reimburse the shareholders and employees of the Dissolved company;

OOC: So is nobody else going to comment on how this proposal makes no exception for assets gained by criminal activities?

3). Requires that member nations allow their state-owned industries to act only in ways that do not impinge unreasonably on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment, and must take these needs properly into consideration when setting any targets for those industries;

Or how this is ridiculous even for an ultra-environmentalist nation like Araraukar?

4). Requires each member nation to establish a set of standards for these matters, subject to any restrictions set by earlier GA resolutions that are still in force, that applies equally to all businesses and industries operating in a given field of activity within that nation regardless of its ownership.

Or how this makes the whole proposal just words on the paper, given the vagueness of "unreasonable", and allowing the nations to self-police themselves?