NationStates

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:00 am**

Protecting Borrower Rights
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Believing that the Assembly has a vested interest in protecting the liberty of those individuals who did nothing wrong but fall hopelessly into debt,

Observing that debtors' prisons, debt bondage, and associated punishments are generally punitive against honest but unlucky debtors, serving little more than detaining and punishing the poor,

Seeing that some persons in member nations are incarcerated merely for failing to repay debt obligations undertaken, and believing that this:
both reduces the ability for that person to earn income to repay such obligations and does little to induce repayment,
creates significant disincentives for entrepreneurs to take risks and invest in new business opportunities, and
leads to borrowers moving away from formal borrowing institutions, which can be subject to the protections of the formal legal system, and into the pockets of loansharks to escape the possibility of imprisonment, and
Concerned about policies which disproportionately impact the poor simply because they are poor, hereby, subject to past and future World Assembly resolutions:

Defines 'debt' as a non-contingent private obligation to render a sum or sums of money to another person under contract; defines a person with debt as a 'borrower';

Prohibits member nations from criminalising, or taking into consideration for purposes of sentencing, the state of being a borrower; forbids member nations from imposing any punishment against borrowers or classes of borrowers by enacting legislation or mass judgement via bill of attainder or similar instruments; frees immediately all persons currently incarcerated and expunges the sentences of all persons currently serving punishment for such reason;

Prohibits the holding of any person to labour for the repayment, origination, or discharge of any debt; frees immediately all persons so held; further prohibits member nations from allowing the inheritance of debts incurred after the passage of this resolution, unless (a) those debts are explicitly incurred with such a provision and (b) such a provision is not prohibited under national or international law;

Provides to any person, natural or juridicial, an effective remedy against creditors wherein they can discharge or renegotiate all debts incurred, contingent on the liquidation of their assets or development of a credible and suitable plan of payment to those creditors; requires member nation courts to waive court fees from non-vexatious litigants who would suffer undue hardship from being required to pay them;

Bars member nations from invoking a person's debts, financial obligations arising from previous state of captivity, fines, or fees as reason to deprive that person of the right to vote in any election, referendum, or plebiscite in which they would otherwise be eligible;

Clarifies that this resolution does not prohibit member nation court systems from, with a court order, garnishing wages for repayment of debts or imprisoning persons for contempt of a court order, so long as such judgements are only for coercive and non-punitive purposes; and further clarifies that, for the purposes of this resolution, tax liabilities are not included in any definition of debt or financial obligation.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:00 am**

Replacement?
This is a replacement.

On accusations of plagiarism of a preamble clause from one of Separatist Peoples' responses below
Permission was acquired.

Notes on numbering
A definition was introduced as section 1. This may have displaced references to sections in older posts in this thread.

Due to the likely repeal of Debtor Voting Rights, its text has been adapted into this resolution as section 5. This may have displaced references to sections in older posts in this thread.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:01 am**

A clear and flagrant affront to national sovereignty. Or, to put it another way, why not?

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:26 am**

Okay, idk about legality and whether this is actually old news at this point, but I feel like some people are gonna ask why this is even necessary (in a lot of case I bet forgetting the large chance that IRL they live in a country with the same laws), so i think you'll actually need a preamble for this. Or at least have an explanation precede the proposal in the OP.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:38 am**

“Seeing as this is a loophole that has been pointed out in the discussion of a possible repeal, I fully support this measure.”

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:45 am**

This will be a full proposal with multiple operative clauses and everything. I penned this on the metro this morning. There are lots of economic arguments about risk taking as well which will definitely increase the humour quotient.

If anyone has anything to recommend, I'll be happy to consider it.

I intend to add: (1) retroactivity, (2) exemption from garnishment, (3) inclusion of contempt, (4) exclusion of fines, and (5) provision of bankruptcy proceedings.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:46 am**

It is not merely a loophole. There is an argument to be made that a person who has taken out a loan they cannot pay has committed an act of fraud against their creditor. Why should a nation be prohibited from prosecuting this as a crime?

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:48 am**

Because assumpsit actions are civil ones, not criminal ones.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:41 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Because assumpsit actions are civil ones, not criminal ones.

It is not for the World Assembly to make that judgement. The legal principle of "assumpsit" may not be applicable in every member nation.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:56 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Because assumpsit actions are civil ones, not criminal ones.

OOC:

A bit of a sidetrack, since I personally would argue that criminalizing fraud or theft is not equivalent to criminalizing non-payment of debt (the criminal act being the lie or misrepresentation to obtain the money/property/et cetera, which could well be criminal even if one DOES pay the debt), but I have to ask:

For those of us who use civil law and no idea what "he has undertaken" is supposed to mean in relation to what the prior poster asked?

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:36 pm**

Falcania wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Because assumpsit actions are civil ones, not criminal ones.

It is not for the World Assembly to make that judgement. The legal principle of "assumpsit" may not be applicable in every member nation.

"Criminalizing a breach of contract sounds like the worst possible thing for your economy, ambassador."

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:40 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Falcania wrote:
It is not for the World Assembly to make that judgement. The legal principle of "assumpsit" may not be applicable in every member nation.

"Criminalizing a breach of contract sounds like the worst possible thing for your economy, ambassador."

"That the ambassador believes it is not in our several national interests to make such a judgement does not mean that nations will not make it, or that it his place to judge those who do."

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:51 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Falcania wrote:
It is not for the World Assembly to make that judgement. The legal principle of "assumpsit" may not be applicable in every member nation.

"Criminalizing a breach of contract sounds like the worst possible thing for your economy, ambassador."

Where the distinction between the private and public sector is more defined than it is in the Free Kingdom then perhaps you may have a point. Fundamentally it remains a matter for the governance of the Free Kingdom and not the General Assembly.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:04 pm**

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Criminalizing a breach of contract sounds like the worst possible thing for your economy, ambassador."

"That the ambassador believes it is not in our several national interests to make such a judgement does not mean that nations will not make it, or that it his place to judge those who do."

"Its poor judgment. It disincentivizes risk, which drives economies forward and encourages black market exchange. It makes regulating economic development almost impossible. It isn't a question of national discretion, its just an idiotic way to run an economy. Anybody who suggests that assumpsit actions should be criminalized has no functional understanding of contract law, commercial policy, or economic theory, and should rightly be laughed out of these halls.

"Indeed, the greater the extent of globalization, the more likely that the mechanisms of economic regulation become an area for the General Assembly to regulate."

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:18 pm**

Just a question, if this proposal forbids the criminalization of not paying debts, then what prevents people from simply not paying their debts?

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:22 pm**

Doing it Rightland wrote:Just a question, if this proposal forbids the criminalization of not paying debts, then what prevents people from simply not paying their debts?

"Incurred liability. Loss of credit. Loss of collateral. Injunctions."

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:31 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Doing it Rightland wrote:Just a question, if this proposal forbids the criminalization of not paying debts, then what prevents people from simply not paying their debts?

"Incurred liability. Loss of credit. Loss of collateral. Injunctions."

They are all potent disincentives, and the distinction between liability and guilt is not lost on me, but it has yet to be adequately explained why it should be the responsibility of the General Assembly to determine appropriate or inappropriate measures for this situation.

Why is this legislation necessary?

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:34 pm**

Falcania wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Incurred liability. Loss of credit. Loss of collateral. Injunctions."

They are all potent disincentives, and the distinction between liability and guilt is not lost on me, but it has yet to be adequately explained why it should be the responsibility of the General Assembly to determine appropriate or inappropriate measures for this situation.

Why is this legislation necessary?

"Guilt implies criminal culpability, while liability is civil, and will not result in loss of freedom, just assets. The World Assembly has a vested interest in protecting the liberty of those individuals who did nothing wrong but fall hopelessly into debt. Debtors prison is generally punitive against honest but unlucky debtors, and serves little more than to detain and punish the poor. The World Assembly has an active interest in individual liberty."

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:38 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Falcania wrote:
They are all potent disincentives, and the distinction between liability and guilt is not lost on me, but it has yet to be adequately explained why it should be the responsibility of the General Assembly to determine appropriate or inappropriate measures for this situation.

Why is this legislation necessary?

"Guilt implies criminal culpability, while liability is civil, and will not result in loss of freedom, just assets. The World Assembly has a vested interest in protecting the liberty of those individuals who did nothing wrong but fall hopelessly into debt. Debtors prison is generally punitive against honest but unlucky debtors, and serves little more than to detain and punish the poor. The World Assembly has an active interest in individual liberty."

Fantastic. Now, if somebody could lend the delegation from Imperium Anglorum a pen, they can draft some legislation that makes that clear.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:41 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Doing it Rightland wrote:Just a question, if this proposal forbids the criminalization of not paying debts, then what prevents people from simply not paying their debts?

"Incurred liability. Loss of credit. Loss of collateral. Injunctions."

Yeah, those certainly do the trick.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:47 pm**

"Modern capitalism is debt slavery. We hope to see a new draft embracing a distributist or social democratic economic model, in line with the title.

Also, support."

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:14 pm**

"Full support."

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:58 pm**

Brilliant I support

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:03 am**

I thought this was already a mandate in democratic nations.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:17 am**

“In clause c, I think you mean the ‘pockets of loansharks’ rather than the ‘pockets to loansharks’.”

NationStates

[PASSED] Protecting Borrower Rights

[PASSED] Protecting Borrower Rights