[SCRAPPED] Ideological Freedom Act

[The Orwell Society]

OOC: This was made in response to the recent repealing of the rule against ideological bans. While I wrote the majority of this draft in a rush due to RL troubles, I spent some time thinking about the definition. This is no where near finished, as you can see by the second half being mostly empty, but once I get a feeling for what I might be doing wrong and get some feedback on how thizs should continue I will take some time to do a second draft which I will finish it in.

As always, constructive criticism and friendly feedback is encouraged, but please don't kill me with words if you disagree with me. I will welcome any and all suggestions.

So without further a due, I give you…

Draft 1

Ideological Freedom Act

Category: Furtherment of Democracy?
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: the Orwellian Delegation

The World Assembly,

NOTING the recent talk of implementing an ideological ban in future legislation;

FURTHER NOTING that some have even gone far enough to begin drafting such legislation, targeting unpopular ideologies that do not align with this body's general belief;

REALIZING that if said legislation is passed, a severe blow will be dealt to national sovereignty and an infringement upon political freedom of expression will be in effect;

Hereby defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• An "ideology" as a broad set of poltical and/or economic beliefs held by an individual on how society should be governed;

Hereby enacts the following:

1. No nation may present legislation to this body prohibiting the practice of any ideology as defined by this resolution;
2. The recognition of the fundamental right of national sovereignty for a nation to choose how it is governed without direct interference from this body;

EDIT: Just realized there's another one of these here.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the recent debate regarding the contraversial ideological ban rule, and its result, leading to the repealing of said rule;

FURTHER NOTING the reason in which the ideological ban rule was repealed in the first place, being unclear and murky in its definitions;

REALIZING that now, nations are free to write legislation banning the practice of certain unpopular ideologies that don't fit with their realm of belief;

INSISTING that if said legislation is passed, a severe blow will be dealt to national sovereignty and an infringement upon freedom of political freedom of expression;

Hereby defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• An "ideology" as a broad set of beliefs held by an individual on how society should be governed;

Hereby enacts the following:

1. No nation may present legislation banning the practice of any ideology as defined by this resolution unless a repeal is put into place;
2. The recognition of the fundamental right of national sovereignty for a nation to choose how it is governed without direct interference from this body;

[Hulldom]

“Opposed. If this machine wishes to stomp fascists into the dirt, we’ll do so.”

[Comfed]

No nation may present legislation banning the practice of any ideology as defined by this resolution unless a repeal is put into place;

Emphasis mine; this bit is redundant. If this resolution is passed and then repealed it has no effect - thus, saying that your resolution will have no effect is repealed is completely unnecessary.

Also your wording does not replace the ideological ban. It simply prevents member-states from imposing ideological bans - not the World Assembly, which is what the ideological ban rule did.

[The Orwell Society]

No nation may present legislation banning the practice of any ideology as defined by this resolution unless a repeal is put into place;

Emphasis mine; this bit is redundant. If this resolution is passed and then repealed it has no effect - thus, saying that your resolution will have no effect is repealed is completely unnecessary.

I will edit that out, thank you.

Also your wording does not replace the ideological ban. It simply prevents member-states from imposing ideological bans - not the World Assembly, which is what the ideological ban rule did.

That was what I intended. I cant impose a new rule, but I can write legislation that works just as well.

[The Orwell Society]

“Opposed. If this machine wishes to stomp fascists into the dirt, we’ll do so.”

"I would rather like my nation to stay above the dirt, thank you."

[The New Nordic Union]

The GA rules are OOC, even if some of them could be justified ICly. Mentioning them is therefore illegal.

[The Orwell Society]

The GA rules are OOC, even if some of them could be justified ICly. Mentioning them is therefore illegal.

If they are only OOC, than why do IC delegations follow them so directly?

[Hulldom]

The GA rules are OOC, even if some of them could be justified ICly. Mentioning them is therefore illegal.

If they are only OOC, than why do IC delegations follow them directly?

We don’t? We do in writing proposals because you can’t fall afoul of them. There also really isn’t much of any reason to do so except for maybe eschewing RL references in our role play canons (some of us do, I, for one, don’t).¹

There was literally nothing stopping a nation from announcing that it had banned fascism or communism or any other ideology. The only reason they didn’t wouldn’t have been “compliance for the rules” because the rules only have force over proposals, not individual members but rather because they didn’t want to/never thought about include/including it in their national role play.

¹ Of course, there are yet others like the house of cards and honest mistake rules that it would be nigh on impossible to include IC.

[The Orwell Society]

If they are only OOC, than why do IC delegations follow them directly?

We don’t? We do in writing proposals because you can’t fall afoul of them. There also really isn’t much of any reason to do so except for maybe eschewing RL references in our role play canons (some of us do, I, for one, don’t).¹

There was literally nothing stopping a nation from announcing that it had banned fascism or communism or any other ideology. The only reason they didn’t wouldn’t have been “compliance for the rules” because the rules only have force over proposals, not individual members but rather because they didn’t want to/never thought about include/including it in their national role play.

¹ Of course, there are yet others like the house of cards and honest mistake rules that it would be nigh on impossible to include IC.

Thank you for the clarification. I will fix it.

[Comfed]

Also your wording does not replace the ideological ban. It simply prevents member-states from imposing ideological bans - not the World Assembly, which is what the ideological ban rule did.

That was what I intended. I cant impose a new rule, but I can write legislation that works just as well.

Well, if that's what you intend to do then you shouldn't be saying that you're replacing the ideological ban rule.

[The Orwell Society]

That was what I intended. I cant impose a new rule, but I can write legislation that works just as well.

Well, if that's what you intend to do then you shouldn't be saying that you're replacing the ideological ban rule.

I never did. I said that this would be in response to the repealing of the rule, not a replacement. Please read the OP again.

[Attempted Socialism]

Can you explain how this is not purely a blocker?

[The Orwell Society]

Can you explain how this is not purely a blocker?

In its current state, it is a blocker. Remember, this is an unfinished draft. I need help thinking of an additional action for this proposal so that it is no longer illegal due to the blocker rule.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Attempting to control what can and cannot be submitted to the proposal queue (which has no such filters) is facially a game mechanics violation.

No nation may present legislation to this body prohibiting the practice of any ideology as defined by this resolution;

I am also unconvinced that any framework which bans "prohibiting the practice of any [a broad set of beliefs held by an individual on how society should be governed]" wouldn't fall afoul of the blocker rule's prohibition on overly-broad blockers. Such a proposal would actually close off entire categories, like Furtherment of Democracy or Regulation, as there are multitudes of beliefs held by individuals on how society should be governed.

---

C Marcius Blythe. The republic has no patience for protecting the practice of broad sets of beliefs held by individuals such as "exterminate the Hellenists". If anything, the proposal is self-contradictory, for it prohibits the practice of a universal conception of human rights that is what would be necessary for real flourishing and eudaimonia. The very idea of using law as a shield for bigotry and oppression is shameful and against good conscience.

OOC. As to below.

That was what I intended. I cant impose a new rule, but I can write legislation that works just as well.

Well, if that's what you intend to do then you shouldn't be saying that you're replacing the ideological ban rule.

You mishandled Comfed's point, which is that there is a difference between member states proposing bans on ideologically motivated practices (which is different from an "ideological ban") and the World Assembly enacting them. That, of course, also ignores the other misapprehension of what the ideological ban rule actually was: it was a rule that prohibited bans on ideologies, not bans on practices that are ideologically connected.

Edit. Formatting. Edited in my own remarks.

[The Orwell Society]

Attempting to control what can and cannot be submitted to the proposal queue (which has no such filters) is facially a game mechanics violation.

It is not proposing to change game mechanics, though, and isn't that what the rule is about. I see your point how that can be harmful in a broader picture.

No nation may present legislation to this body prohibiting the practice of any ideology as defined by this resolution;

I am also unconvinced that any framework which bans "prohibiting the practice of any [a broad set of beliefs held by an individual on how society should be governed]" wouldn't fall afoul of the blocker rule's prohibition on overly-broad blockers. Such a proposal would actually close off entire categories, like Furtherment of Democracy or Regulation, as there are multitudes of beliefs held by individuals on how society should be governed.

I have to disagree with you there, IA. The definition, which I thought hard on, defines ideology as a broad set of beliefs, not a belief. For example, slavery. Slavery is not a very broad concept, therefore it would not fall under this definition. However, things like anarchism, totalitarianism, socialism, and capitalism are very broad concepts, therefore do fall under the definition.

---

Well, if that's what you intend to do then you shouldn't be saying that you're replacing the ideological ban rule.

You mishandled Comfed's point, which is that there is a difference between member states proposing bans on ideologically motivated practices (which is different from an "ideological ban") and the World Assembly enacting them. That, of course, also ignores the other misapprehension of what the ideological ban rule actually was: it was a rule that prohibited bans on ideologies, not bans on practices that are ideologically connected.

Edit. Formatting.

And... you lost me there. What would be considered a practice that is ideologically connected as opposed to an ideology?

[WayNeacTia]

I don't see how this can be saved, nor why it should be saved. Removing the ideological ban is a terrible idea to begin with....

[The Orwell Society]

I don't see how this can be saved, nor why it should be saved. Removing the ideological ban is a terrible idea to begin with....

So you support in concept?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Broadly, these are the sorts of responses that lead me to believe that you don't yourself understand what it is you are doing.

Attempting to control what can and cannot be submitted to the proposal queue (which has no such filters) is facially a game mechanics violation.

It is not proposing to change game mechanics, though, and isn't that what the rule is about. I see your point how that can be harmful in a broader picture.

This is irrelevant. Protections During Territorial Transitions [2021] GAS 4's reasoning implicates no actual change in game mechanics; it relates only to the incompatibility of an action with the game mechanics. This is the same as the classic "eject the non-compliers" example; ejection is a game mechanic that exists and requires no actual change, it is just incompatible with site policy. There is a metaphorical thread in the game mechanics jurisprudence that would place this "proposal filtering" into such a bucket; I can't speak for the other colleagues, but for me, this is what the rule is about.

No nation may present legislation to this body prohibiting the practice of any ideology as defined by this resolution;

I am also unconvinced that any framework which bans "prohibiting the practice of any [a broad set of beliefs held by an individual on how society should be governed]" wouldn't fall afoul of the blocker rule's prohibition on overly-broad blockers. Such a proposal would actually close off entire categories, like Furtherment of Democracy or Regulation, as there are multitudes of beliefs held by individuals on how society should be governed.

I have to disagree with you there, IA. The definition, which I thought hard on, defines ideology as a broad set of beliefs, not a belief. For example, slavery. Slavery is not a very broad concept, therefore it would not fall under this definition. However, things like anarchism, totalitarianism, socialism, and capitalism are very broad concepts, therefore do fall under the definition.

There exist broad beliefs such as "divine right of kings" and "minarchism" which are incompatible with Furtherment of Democracy and with Regulation. Oh wait, you already made this point and didn't realise where it actually goes: admitting that your proposal protects anarchism and its practice also admits that the proposal blocks basically all categories.

The response's example with slavery also isn't apt. Beyond the fact I didn't mention slavery above, the justification for chattel slavery in the American South was not just that "slavery is very cash money", but rather, that that the white man is so superior to the black man that it is a fact of nature that the black man must exist in servitude. (All relevant sources found at https://www.historians.org/teaching-and ... ry-sources.) For example, Texas stated this rather explicitly in its statement of secession:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race ... that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only [ie in slavery] could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable ... That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race ... is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authori[s]ed and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recogni[s]ed by all Christian nations.

Alexander Stephens, later vice president of the Confederacy, stated as much in his "Cornerstone speech" laying out the cornerstone principles of the Confederate constitution:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically ... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition [Applause.] ... This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

These are broad sets of beliefs. They are rejections of equality and broad statements of organising society around white supremacy and black subservience. It is a "great physical, philosophical, and moral truth" that is "authorised and justified by the experience of mankind and the revealed will" of God. Your proposal would stop the World Assembly from prohibiting its practice. Congratulations.

And... you lost me there. What would be considered a practice that is ideologically connected as opposed to an ideology?

The ideological ban rule prohibited bans on ideologies; it did not prohibit bans on ideological practices. Actions can be motivated by many things: someone could nationalise some industry because of criminal action, foreign influence, personal enrichment, etc. It need not be connected only to "nationalisation for the purpose of furthering the dictatorship of the proletariat". Practices and ideologies are not 1-to-1 linked.

[Fachumonn]

Can you explain how this is not purely a blocker?

In its current state, it is a blocker. Remember, this is an unfinished draft. I need help thinking of an additional action for this proposal so that it is no longer illegal due to the blocker rule.

A pure blocker should be illegal, because the proposal itself needs to have a

recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change.

[Quoted from the rules]

[The Orwell Society]

In its current state, it is a blocker. Remember, this is an unfinished draft. I need help thinking of an additional action for this proposal so that it is no longer illegal due to the blocker rule.

A pure blocker should be illegal, because the proposal itself needs to have a "recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change." [Quoted from the rules]

And it will.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

OOC: Although I would support the concept ICly due to dictatorship reasons, but OOCly I cannot support due to the illegalities pointed out above.

[The Orwell Society]

OOC: Although I would support the concept ICly due to dictatorship reasons, but OOCly I cannot support due to the illegalities pointed out above.

Fair

[Wallenburg]

This runs contrary to existing de facto prohibitions on ideology currently in law.

[The Orwell Society]

This runs contrary to existing de facto prohibitions on ideology currently in law.

Like what?

[Wallenburg]

This runs contrary to existing de facto prohibitions on ideology currently in law.

Like what?

The current intellectual property suite basically bans communism. More widely, the requirements of the body of regulatory resolutions effectively prohibit anything resembling anarchism, by virtue of mandating top-down policies which members must enforce.