[Challenge] Trade Of Endangered Organisms

[Christian Democrats]

My comments are in red.

Opinion draft

We are asked to determine if the proposal Trade of Endangered Organisms ("ToEO") is illegal for a category violation. This proposal was submitted as Moral Decency; ultimately (and despite acknowledged precedent for an apparently environment-centered resolution legally standing as Moral Decency) I find the proposal too broad to fit in MD, and thus illegal.

Moral Decency ("MD") is a category designed to restrict the civil rights of individuals (use the term "personal freedoms" instead of "civil rights"; a resolution restricting child pornography or banning racial segregation in private businesses, for example, is an MD resolution because it limits "personal freedom"; but viewing pornography or discriminating against racial minorities is certainly not a "civil right") in order to promote a desired "higher" goal ("in order to promote the greater good" would be a better description); to constrain personal conduct because society as a whole becomes more "good" as a result (remove the scare quotes; we're not here to deride whole categories). From one perspective, all law is on some level a moral decency act, a restriction of individual rights (use "natural freedom" instead) to benefit society; without getting into a genealogy of rules, NationStates specifically is set up to differentiate areas of the law based pragmatically on what parts of society they affect. MD in this scheme is simply that part of the law that primarily restricts individuals, and whose benefit is not measurable in materialistic (that is, economic) terms. (primarily restricts individuals' non-economic liberties)

ToEO prohibits a substantial amount of economic activity and requires that nations "ardently enforce" measures to halt that activity. The obvious real-world analogue is CITES, the treaty forming the basis of the international ban on ivory. Killing members of an endangered species may well be morally unacceptable. But the most noticeable consequence of banning such killings isn't a reduction of the civil rights (personal freedom) (and a moral improvement in the souls) (not necessary) of would-be poachers, it is the loss of profits to those caught trading in the products of those animals. Therefore, since ToEO acts primarily on economic rights (freedoms) for the benefit of the ecosystem, it properly belongs under Environmental.

One might argue that Sensible Limits on Hunting does basically the same thing - restricts the killing of endangered species - so if that's legal as Moral Decency, why isn't this? Without commenting here on the legality of Sensible Limits on Hunting, I respond that SLoH really does limit itself to acting on the rights of individuals. While there is a clause specifically on the economics of hunting, the focus is on regulating legal trade, getting the right paperwork, and such - not on coming down hard against poachers and ivory traffickers. Where ToEO acts to destroy the lethal trade of endangered species, SLoH acts to make individual hunters follow set procedures in getting permits and in choosing their targets; and the latter is therefore much more able to fit as an act of Moral Decency. ToEO cannot come close to fitting that hole, and is therefore illegal as submitted.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Very well. I promise you we will get called on what looks like a prelude to declaring Sensible Limits on Hunting illegal; I still think there's a narrow possibility that that one really is primarily a Moral Decency resolution, while this one is clearly Environmental. But little good can come of mentioning that here if the two of you disagree.


Second draft

We are asked to determine if the proposal Trade of Endangered Organisms ("ToEO") is illegal for a category violation. This proposal was submitted as Moral Decency ("MD"); we find the proposal too broad to fit in MD, and thus illegal.

Moral Decency is a category designed to restrict the personal freedoms of individuals in order to promote a greater good; to constrain personal conduct because society as a whole becomes more virtuous as a result. From one perspective, all law is on some level a moral decency act, a restriction of individual power to benefit society; without getting into a genealogy of rules, NationStates specifically is set up to differentiate areas of the law based pragmatically on what parts of society they affect. MD in this scheme is simply that part of the law that primarily restricts individuals in the personal (rather than the political or economic) sphere.

ToEO prohibits a substantial amount of economic activity and requires that nations "ardently enforce" measures to halt that activity. The obvious real-world analogue is CITES, the treaty forming the basis of the international ban on ivory. Killing members of an endangered species may well be morally unacceptable, and a law against it thus enacted to restrict personal conduct for moralistic ends. But the most noticeable consequence of the way this proposal bans such killings isn't a reduction of the personal freedom of would-be poachers, it is the loss of profits to those caught trading in the products of those animals. Therefore, since ToEO acts primarily on economic rights for the benefit of the ecosystem, it properly belongs under Environmental and is thus illegal as submitted.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I genuinely don't know why we should care about avoiding saying SLH was in the wrong category.

[Bears Armed]

I genuinely don't know why we should care about avoiding saying SLH was in the wrong category.

Because
1/I obtained a ruling before submission that it was okay as 'Moral Decency';
2/ it's always been the rule that once a resolution passes it must be regarded as fully 'legal';
and
3/ passed resolutions have never been shifted between categories before this, even when the Category system was being expanded.

[Sedgistan]

You shouldn't be afraid to disagree with previous mod rulings, and say "if we were ruling on it now, we'd do differently".

[Glen-Rhodes]

I genuinely don't know why we should care about avoiding saying SLH was in the wrong category.

Because
1/I obtained a ruling before submission that it was okay as 'Moral Decency';
2/ it's always been the rule that once a resolution passes it must be regarded as fully 'legal';
and
3/ passed resolutions have never been shifted between categories before this, even when the Category system was being expanded.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Saying that SLH was submitted in the wrong category wouldn't do anything more than prevent people form trying to use it as precedent in the future. It wouldn't mean the resolution is "illegal" and needs to be deleted, or that the category needs to be changed manually.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Because
1/I obtained a ruling before submission that it was okay as 'Moral Decency';
2/ it's always been the rule that once a resolution passes it must be regarded as fully 'legal';
and
3/ passed resolutions have never been shifted between categories before this, even when the Category system was being expanded.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Saying that SLH was submitted in the wrong category wouldn't do anything more than prevent people form trying to use it as precedent in the future. It wouldn't mean the resolution is "illegal" and needs to be deleted, or that the category needs to be changed manually.

I agree with this, all except the part where you say SLH was submitted in the wrong category. That one wasn't, barely - this was, blatantly.

If I'm not careful I'ma wind up as this body's Anthony Kennedy.

[Bears Armed]

I agree with this, all except the part where you say SLH was submitted in the wrong category. That one wasn't, barely

Also, will people here please remember that that resolution was submitted & passed well before the rules were changed to let 'Environmental (All Businesses)' be used for relatively mild proposals like that rather than just for effectively-'Strong' ones... If I had submitted it as 'Environmental (All Businesses)' back then, that would have been illegal.

[Christian Democrats]

Did we ever deliver these opinions?

[Separatist Peoples]

Did we ever deliver these opinions?

No, but the holiday slowed us down.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ok, back from The Land of Evil Finals and Restorative Binge Drinking.

My dissent:

I must respectfully dissent from the majority decision. In my view, while this properly belongs in the Environmental category, it does fit in Moral Decency. It restricts the individual's nonpolitical rights. I believe the appropriate test for category violations should not be one determining the best category and so requiring it, but one where there is a violation only if the resolution has no impacts which could reasonably fit into the selected category. I feel it is unduly restrictive and paternalistic toward the players to tell them not only what categories are illegal, but what are legal on their face but otherwise "wrong".

In this case, the resolution seeks to restrict individual nonpolitical freedoms to engage in certain natural resource collection. This is a restriction of individual rights which is the category requirement for Moral Decency, and it is reasonable to assume that there are category-imposed impacts on private action by individuals, even though the greater impact is on individual and business' economic rights.

I also dissent with the notion that precedent be overturned. A precedential system works best when precedents are not overturned unless there is no alternative. There is no purpose in a precedential system where previous decisions are ignored lightly. Here there is an alternative: The precedent set by Sensible Limits on Hunting is not so damaging that it cannot stand. It represents a minor option to choose the best of two options for an incredibly narrow kind of resolution, and need not be tossed aside.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You gotta come up with some way to differentiate the "individual freedoms" that are restricted by Moral Decency versus Political Stability, if you're arguing that the only box that needs to be ticked for Moral Decency is the restriction of some kind of right/freedom, rather than also needing a moral reason for it. Otherwise the categories are identical!

[Separatist Peoples]

You gotta come up with some way to differentiate the "individual freedoms" that are restricted by Moral Decency versus Political Stability, if you're arguing that the only box that needs to be ticked for Moral Decency is the restriction of some kind of right/freedom, rather than also needing a moral reason for it. Otherwise the categories are identical!

Political Stability limits political freedoms, which is a different statistic. Unless I'm grossly misremembering the category. But, I'll distinguish for clarity.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You gotta come up with some way to differentiate the "individual freedoms" that are restricted by Moral Decency versus Political Stability, if you're arguing that the only box that needs to be ticked for Moral Decency is the restriction of some kind of right/freedom, rather than also needing a moral reason for it. Otherwise the categories are identical!

Political Stability limits political freedoms, which is a different statistic. Unless I'm grossly misremembering the category. But, I'll distinguish for clarity.

How do you determine which words count under the "political freedoms" stat and which ones under the "civil freedoms"?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the categories tell us exactly what the proposals are supposed to be. Moral Decency is about morals. Political Stability is about law & order. Some of you guys are taking a position that these descriptors don't count!

[Sciongrad]

if you're arguing that the only box that needs to be ticked for Moral Decency is the restriction of some kind of right/freedom

Isn't this exactly what Gruen, an Issues Editor who actually knows what the categories do, said? The only relevant consideration is whether some freedom is restricted?

[Sedgistan]

If he said that, he's wrong. It's explicitly civil rights that are restricted by that category, not political or economic freedoms.

[Sciongrad]

If he said that, he's wrong. It's explicitly civil rights that are restricted by that category, not political or economic freedoms.

I don't have any more knowledge about the category system than any of the other GenSec members, but this is what Gruen said:

There's no requirement that Moral Decency proposals do. All they have to do to meet the category requirement is to reduce individual freedoms: in this case, limiting the right to travel freely.

I disagree. It's pretty hard to argue convincingly that "restricting civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency" doesn't require an actual moral issue at hand.

Nah, the category stats are pretty clear that the only needed input is a reduction of individual freedom.

If that's the case, then the proposal in question is obviously Moral Decency. Does it restrict freedoms? Yes, the right to travel. Is that a political freedom in this context? No. Economic? No. Must be civil.

[Sedgistan]

I disagree with him on two grounds: first on his reading of how the Category system works. Yes, the only stat that Moral Decency proposals change is your civil rights. However, that does not mean that anything that could have a tiny little change to that stat can go into that category. You need to judge the proposals effects as a whole.

Secondly, I disagree that this affects the "right to travel" in any way significant enough to affect civil rights. You're still fully entitled to travel; you just have to leave your dodo-feather cape at the border. The proposal is about stopping the endangered species/products from moving, not people.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Did we ever deliver these opinions?

A month after this question was asked (which was itself more than two weeks since the last post about the proposal itself), the answer is still "no." No doubt that's partly on me, but regardless we should post the opinion, late as it is, since this thread has otherwise come due for public archiving (not to mention that we need to post the opinion in the first place!).

Does anyone have anything else to add here?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I would prefer saying explicitly that Moral Decency resolutions need to actually make a moral argument. But I don't find your second draft objectionable, so I'll sign on to it.

[Christian Democrats]

The opinion should be posted in the public challenge thread as well.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Alright, I'll post the opinions publicly later today.