[DEFEATED] Sensible limits on Industry Act

[Kelssek]

This seems like a fairly strange proposal, and in fact it is so strange I was initially wondering if it was really one of those crypto-capitalist subversions the People's World News Daily keeps banging on about.

Nevertheless, we must assume that the drafters are genuine in their desire to encourage member states to penalize wrongdoing by corporations. If that's what they want, this appears to have counterproductive effects and actually restricts the ability of states to penalize lawbreaking.

I'm referring in particular to clause 2. Allowing for the wide variation that member states will probably have on matters of forfeiture and expropriation, it doesn't seem like it serves justice if the claims of shareholders and employees (who may well have been complicit or negligent in the corporation's wrongdoing) would be prioritized. To give two things we'd rather see the assets be used for, the state could compensate victims or remediate the damage.

It is also fairly common for sole-proprietor corporations to exist, where someone self-employed sets up a corporation for accounting and tax purposes. Clause 2 would mandate compensating that person, in effect absolving them of the monetary loss due to their misconduct, and making the entire point of imposing a penalty by seizing the corporation's assets moot.

Leigh Avevor
Ambassador to the WA

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm against, for a different reason. Debt-holders should come before shareholders. Employees are remunerated by their wages, they shouldn't get much of anything.

[South Ccanda]

Privately owned? What's that.

It means its owned by the citizens of said nation and not run by the state.
basically, capitalism.

[Araraukar]

Privately owned? What's that.

It means its owned by the citizens of said nation and not run by the state.
basically, capitalism.

OOC: Well, companies/businesses/corporations/whatever can also be owned by other businesses, which might then be owned by state/municipality/county/whatnot public entity. So the "privately owned" can get pretty hazy. Also, municipalities are not state-run (not sure of how counties work) but more like (partially) state-funded. At least over here there's a clear distinction, even though both are "owned by the public".

Also, not necessarily owned by the citizens of said nation since international things exist.

...which actually raises an interesting point of whether this could be legally done at all on a business completely owned by people/legal entities of a non-WA nation?

[Wallenburg]

...which actually raises an interesting point of whether this could be legally done at all on a business completely owned by people/legal entities of a non-WA nation?

Seeing as it only permits dissolution of operations within the jurisdiction of member states, I'd say that it's perfectly legal. Foreigners and their businesses have to follow the law just like anyone else.

[Araraukar]

...which actually raises an interesting point of whether this could be legally done at all on a business completely owned by people/legal entities of a non-WA nation?

Seeing as it only permits dissolution of operations within the jurisdiction of member states, I'd say that it's perfectly legal. Foreigners and their businesses have to follow the law just like anyone else.

OOC: Yeah, but I mean the whole selling of the thing and giving part of it to the people employed there, rather than just the owners. So basically the WA nation is "stealing" some of the money and "gifting" it to the workers, regardless of what nation (one would assume most would be from the WA nation in question) they're from. If it was just the dissolution and selling and giving the money to the owners, then it would be fine. But if it's not because of a criminal act (the proposal here doesn't require criminalisation) that the money-loss occurs, then I know there's something in NEF or one of the other legal seizure/ownership resolutions (can't remember which one without checking) about how the state must pay the owners whatever is seized by it. Thus leading to the WA nation actually being the one to pay the employees' portion of the money.

[Wallenburg]

Well, if there is such a clause, I'm sure the author would appreciate if you identified it specifically before this goes to Vote.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: NEF only specifies that compensation be paid not that the compensation must fully reflect the value of whatever has been seized.

In any case, member states that already go around willy nilly dissolving companies and distributing the proceeds to the employees (other than nominal compensation to the owners as required by NEF) will continue to do so regardless of this. Those that don't, won't. So clauses 1 and 2 basically amount to the WA telling member states to keep doing whatever it is you currently do. Or change your mind if you wish.

And then clauses 3 and 4 amount to virtually nothing as well. See "unreasonably" and the targets which must be set but not necessarily met.

[Araraukar]

Well, if there is such a clause, I'm sure the author would appreciate if you identified it specifically before this goes to Vote.

OOC: It was NEF:

REQUIRES national governments to compensate any individual, group of individuals, or national governments for any physical property or money seized by that national government, excepting those assets used for criminal enterprise,

But the author isn't willing to withdraw for the other issues to get fixed, so I'm sure they won't be willing for this either.

To Banana: I never claimed illegality. I claimed illogicality.

And you also nicely summed up the reason why I consider this to be a "does nothing" proposal.

[Wrapper]

This is now at vote.

[Furry Things]

Looking through this, the rushed submission definitely shows. There's a lot of unaddressed concerns here. For now, voting against. If you want to try drafting a while longer and resubmitting it, I'll definitely reconsider it then.

[Goldenson]

I like how it provides a light, floor-like, regulatory framework for protecting individuals. It leaves a lot of the duties of definition to Member states. I'm voting FOR.

[Kenmoria]

“The provisions contained within this proposal fulfuill the aims of the Kenmoria WA Mission in the World Assembly. However, we fell as though the way this was drafted did not show sufficient respect for this great chamber, and that this does not have enough reasoning behind it, thus our vote is AGAINST this proposal.”

[The Manticoran Empire]

"I must ask a very serious question of the author of this proposal. Have you any concept of private property rights or economics? Yes, some businesses may act in environmentally destructive ways. But the threat of the Government coming in and closing your business and taking your property because of the arbitrary infractions in this resolution will discourage businesses and, indeed, drive member states to economic ruin as businesses move their activities to non-member states in order to avoid the truly toxic conditions that this resolution would create. This resolution will cause far more harm than it will prevent, leaving millions, perhaps billions without work and leaving member states destitute and reliant on imports that they will be increasingly unable to afford."

[Demiurges]

If this DOES get passed, we of Demiurges may very well bow out of the WA, simply because as a highly commercial nation with priorities on the economy, the damage this would do to us economically is simply unbearable and as such certainly goes against the principles of almost every single Capitalist based nation. Not to mention, as previous posters pointed out, it also infringes upon the International business standards giving the WA the right to essentially take down whatever company they want on any complaint they can brew up with impunity.

[Ragnaria]

This just seems like unnecessary overreach, it should be up to individual nations whenever or why they decided to cease the means of production from those ghastly rapacious capitalists.

[Freepublican]

We already have sensible legislation in our Freepublican industry and do not need your permission.

[Libervalley]

The Federation of Conservative Nation has issues with this resolution for several reasons. Many nations in the region do care about the environment and believe in sensible environmental regulation however that is not what this bill does. The principles of the FCN holds that individuals have a right to their private property and there be a proportional punishment for violating the law. The confiscation of private property which this resolution alludes to is not acceptable to the FCN at any level. The effort to improve the environment is noted but the shoehorned anti-capitalist confiscation of property will not be accepted in this region.

Therefore I Libervalley the WA Delegate representing Federation of Conservative Nations shall vote against this resolution.

[B4kst4br]

"After full review of this proposal, and listening to the debate back and forth, we will be voting against this resolution. Concerns of over-reach aside, this resolution would infringe upon the personal property rights of our business owners."

[Alvero]

While we appreciate and support proposals that reflect leftist values, the Republic of Alvero can not support this proposal. We believe this proposal to be poorly written and flawed. It fails to have any real impact and serves no tangible purpose. Although we can not support this specific proposal, we welcome similar proposals that protect our right to dissolve corporations that have committed ethical rule violations. We thank the author for their intent, and hope to see similar proposals in the future.

Lilian Ventura
Ambassador to the World Assembly
The Republic of Alvero

[Gagium]

Against this blatant & disgusting enforcement and legalization of what is effectively communism. Any delegates voting for should be ashamed of themselves.

[Cantonese Union]

The Cantonese Union will not support this resolution as it is written right now, and most likely will not support any further variations of it due to the threat it creates to the Cantonese economy.

For nations that are on the fence about supporting or rejecting this bill, here is our explanation as for why you shouldn't support it:

1. The largest problem with the resolution are the words used in it. While this resolution promotes prohibiting private-owned companies from prioritizing profits over health, safety and well-being of individuals, lauses 1 and 2 start with "authorize" and "allow", which means member nations are allowed to not enforce any punishments on private-owned companies, meanwhile clauses 3 and 4 are strictly enforced because nations are "required" to enforce them. This means that state-owned companies are at a huge disadvantage while private companies could keep prioritizing profit over all.
2. The resolution is too strict, it allows (but doesn't force due to the first two clauses) member nations to abuse private companies for the most minor infractions imaginable.
3. The Cantonese Union believes that this resolution would impede the economic growth of developing nations due to the fact that they are the ones forced to put profit over health for attaining prosperity in the long run -- strict worldwide restrictions could prevent them from reaching their economic goals for decades.

[Vascoviy]

I voted against on the basis of my missunderstanding of the first part:

"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;"

My question is (and I may be missing something obvious here):
How does one 'Involuntarily dissolve any privately-owned business operations...'?

[Kenmoria]

I voted against on the basis of my missunderstanding of the first part:

"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;"

My question is (and I may be missing something obvious here):
How does one 'Involuntarily dissolve any privately-owned business operations...'?

(OOC: Although the proposal is somewhat unclear, that most likely means to dissolve without the consent of the business involved.)

[Jutsa]

*smashes a big red "NO" button.*

"This proposal is simultaneously too vague and too strict for us to even consider supporting, regardless of our pro-environmental stance."

*waters a little air fern.*