[PASSED] Ethics in International Trade

[Unibot]

ooc: Fine, because all that regulations of any kind do well is build up big, huge megacorps and crush the entrepreneur.

OOC: Okay bud, you want be out-of-character, well fuck it, I'm out of character.. but that isn't going to help your fucking case, 'cause Eduard was going to be a helluva of a lot nicer about this then I am.

In real life, in the most exploited labor communities of the world, who is committing the most to making sure their employees are fucked? Let's see here, a small business or a transnational capital-gaismic dildo-waving brand-name global behemoth ? It comes down to who can get the human resources, and who can bully the local government and the international government into turning a blind.

Now how much profit with a small business is domestic? Probably more so than with the dildo-waving thingy-majiger. Whose outputting more? Whose human-rights abuses are 'less' excusable? With this tariff, both are going to be treated equally, because there isn't an excuse for not be able to provide the things on the list in the resolution anyway, unless there is a fucking drought or I don't know, all your employees have insomnia. However if you're asking me who is going to be hurt more by this resolution? The answer is pretty resound: The bully.

OOC: As much as I do not want to turn this into a discussion that considers economics (I want to stay on topic with the resolution) I will make an exception. Regulations that increase the cost of opening a business (which all regulations, directly or indirectly, do) decrease the profitability of competition. What I mean by this is that an entrepreneur will be less likely to take a risk and open shop
if opening shop costs more money. The more money that is required, the fewer people there will be that are willing to supply it. It's fairly self explanatory. Now with decreased competition, large megacorps (who already have cash on hand to pay for any increased costs can simply increase their price. Now usually when a company increases their prices it inherently becomes more profitable for competition to be mustered to compete with them. But when you have regulation that already makes it less profitable, it really just kind of balances out allowing big megacorps to charge more and make more money. Now your legislation does not do this directly. I still oppose it for two reasons. First because it does it indirectly. Entrepreneurs that need specific materials to open will have to pay more for those materials, making the risk higher, making fewer people willing to invest. Also, any regulation represents a malicious precedent. If THIS legislation is passed, then why not pass something forcing employers to pay their workers certain wages, give more expensive healthcare etc. etc. Your legislation is like the marijuana of barriers to entry to competition. A gateway drug.

Bullshit, domestic small-time workplaces don't get away with the shit that multinational megacorps get away with, the reason is simple: money + power.

In other words this has nothing to do with economics and is just some vendetta against corporations? The best way to get back at them is to deregulate and allow more competition from entrepreneurs. That will be like a kick to the crotch. And I loved how you railed at me and then didn't address any of what I said. Shows how strongly you feel about this resolution.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.. first, why are we deregulating and letting the employees suffer? It's the politicians that should be growing a set of balls (hehe.. figuratively) and keeping the multinational companies from pushing our human-rights off a slippery slope and leaving this weak and miserable interpretation of 'rights' as the norm for employment. Unfortunately neither of our plans can be submitted by the World Assembly, neither deregulation or higher regulation. Why? Because these abusers of human rights aren't in the World Assembly. So how can we protect these people anyway? A tariff.

[Embolalia]

May I cut in?

In other words this has nothing to do with economics and is just some vendetta against corporations?

Uhh, what? This is about helping to further workers' rights outside of the WA. By definition, the groups affected by this are those that trade outside of their own nation, i.e. multinationals. This could be corporations, yes. Most likely, the majority will be. But it could be states. It could even be non-profits, theoretically. The fact that the majority of those negatively effected will be corporations (and I should note, the larger the corporation, the more likely it will trade internationally. The smaller a corporation, the less likely it is to trade internationally. Thus, small businesses are unlikely to be effected by this.) does not mean this is a vendetta against corporations. It's a vendetta against poor conditions which, generally speaking, are created by corporations. It's an important distinction.

The best way to get back at them is to deregulate and allow more competition from entrepreneurs. That will be like a kick to the crotch.

Whaaaa??? If the groups concerned would improve workers rights if they had less regulation, why haven't they already? As it stands, the groups to be affected by this have absolutely no regulation by this body. None. Not a single word. They can't have, since this affects those outside the Assembly. (It's actually a pretty clever way around the rules, for which I applaud the ambassador from Unibot)

And I loved how you railed at me and then didn't address any of what I said. Shows how strongly you feel about this resolution.

I rather think he did address what you said. Since it was pure bollocks, he only needed a short reply. And a terse response to a single ambassador making incoherent points (OOC: and who has spent more time throwing OOC insults around than actually debating) can in no way be taken to mean that the Unibotian delegation doesn't care. Rather, the fact that the ambassador from Unibot has taken such care to address your concerns, and the concerns of others, and has attempted to make this resolution the best possible makes me think the ambassador from Unibot cares very much indeed about this resolution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: It's considered the standard starting point for WA-based RP, such as what we do here. Of course II and NS don't always follow it, but that's not news. One of the many contradictions inherent in playing NationStates.

OOC: Compliance has never been mandatory in roleplay. There's even a guide to roleplaying noncompliance. The idea that we must comply to a resolution is just plain dumb. It arises from game mechanics, is constricting, and takes away from the 'realness' of the World Assembly universe. Indeed, Glen-Rhodes doesn't comply with two resolutions: Access to Science in Schools and Dignified End of Life Choices. The first, they simply do not enforce it. The second, they use legal loopholes.

Since I don't think Unibot wants his drafting thread taken up by 8 pages of OOC debate, if anybody would like to continue the compliance discussion, they should create a new thread. I don't think there's much to talk about, though, that hasn't already been stated in the Reference Guide.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: Compliance has never been mandatory in roleplay. There's even a guide to roleplaying noncompliance.

...which states that defying resolutions is usually considered Godmoding. You have to be a really good roleplayer if you want to get away with outright defiance, and barging into this chamber and saying "I don't like it! I won't comply!" is hardly what I would consider groundwork for a good RP.

[Glen-Rhodes]

...which states that defying resolutions is usually considered Godmoding. You have to be a really good roleplayer if you want to get away with outright defiance, and barging into this chamber and saying "I don't like it! I won't comply!" is hardly what I would consider groundwork for a good RP.

I wouldn't consider that particularly great, either. But, I was talking about this part of the guide, which offers a little more detail on noncompliance than the part you're talking about.

From a roleplay standpoint, resolutions are made law in all member nations. This leaves you with plenty of options for roleplayed noncompliance. Just like in real life countries, the law can be flouted, remain on the books but lack enforcement by the government, or it can be nullified by another part of your nation’s law. Maybe even a combination of those three approaches could be used. Just be aware of the possibility of other nations putting diplomatic pressure on you to comply. If you want to roleplay compliance with resolutions from the start, just have your Parliament (or whatever your legislative body is, if you have one) pass a law that reflects the text of the WA resolution, have your government enforce the law, or have your citizens voluntarily do whatever the resolution said. You can even roleplay that the WA Gnomes brought you into compliance. As with noncompliance, you have options, and they can be used in combination with one another.

[Embolalia]

Maybe, and I may just be crazy on this one, Unibot's resolution could be expanded to include non-compliant WA nations!

Perhaps clause 1 could be split into two parts: the existing first part, and 1b, which would be something like:

b. Said imported goods or resources were manufactured, recovered or generated in nations which do not make a good faith effort to comply with any and all resolutions, past, present and future, passed by this Assembly.

Then, people can still RP non-compliance, but there's actually a penalty.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

@GR: I know what the guide says; I helped to write it. But there's a reason the guide stresses the "but it's not a good idea" part. It's because we as experienced players don't want to encourage bad RP, and that's what your previous post to the Black Knight (or whatever his name is) seemed to be doing.

@Embolalia: Assuming noncompliance in resolutions is considered metagaming. Resolutions are not strictly RP; like daily issues they're an extension of the game engine, which forces compliance on everyone.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

@GR: I know what the guide says; I helped to write it. But there's a reason the guide stresses the "but it's not a good idea" part. It's because we as experienced players don't want to encourage bad RP, and that's what your previous post to the Black Knight (or whatever his name is) seemed to be doing.

Yep, I think players like Glen-Rhodes with the Access to Science rez, can 'get away with noncompliance', but its because their noncompliance isn't just retaliatory, and the dimension and consistency of their opposition to the law allows me as a RPer to accept their noncompliance. Much like when AO's members roleplayed noncompliance to the ICC. I tend to shrug off characters who just barge in and say they're not following the law.

@Embolalia: Assuming noncompliance in resolutions is considered metagaming. Resolutions are not strictly RP; like daily issues they're an extension of the game engine, which forces compliance on everyone.

I just wanted to add -- In-character I approach this with the philosophy that the World Assembly even mentioning noncompliance, hints that noncompliance is acceptable... and so trusting that our members will implement our legislation is imperative, or else the whole system of honor falls apart.

[Sanctaria]

Hereby,

1. Imposes an ethical and ad valorem tariff on any imported good or resource that features one or several of the following criteria:

Said imported goods or resources were manufactured, recovered or generated by those (excluding non-sentient employees, ex. Automata) who have no entitlement (or access) to,

• Clean water, sanitation and/or nutrition;

I have a small concern with the above. What if the possibility arises that a WA nation is hit with a natural disaster, or indeed war, that destroys a nation's sanitation and clean water systems. For example, flooding or earthquakes can cause serious and often longterm destruction to a country's sanitation system and, as a result, often the cleanliness of their water. Would it therefore be ethical for the World Assembly to impose restrictions on such a country when, in fact, its economy is already in distress?

I would suggest a rewording, or clarity, of this point whereby the restriction is only imposed when the workers have no entitlement to the aforementioned, rather than no access. As I've stated, sometimes the lack of access may not be their, or their government's fault.

Yours.,

[Unibot]

Hereby,

1. Imposes an ethical and ad valorem tariff on any imported good or resource that features one or several of the following criteria:

Said imported goods or resources were manufactured, recovered or generated by those (excluding non-sentient employees, ex. Automata) who have no entitlement (or access) to,

• Clean water, sanitation and/or nutrition;

I have a small concern with the above. What if the possibility arises that a WA nation is hit with a natural disaster, or indeed war, that destroys a nation's sanitation and clean water systems. For example, flooding or earthquakes can cause serious and often longterm destruction to a country's sanitation system and, as a result, often the cleanliness of their water. Would it therefore be ethical for the World Assembly to impose restrictions on such a country when, in fact, its economy is already in distress?

I would suggest a rewording, or clarity, of this point whereby the restriction is only imposed when the workers have no entitlement to the aforementioned, rather than no access. As I've stated, sometimes the lack of access may not be their, or their government's fault.

Yours.,

Eduard paused, "Yes, but what if they're entitled to clean water, just not clean water they have access to?"

Eduard boyishly grinned, "Oh okay.. fine .. you win."

[Glen-Rhodes]

* Price elasticity of demand, and consumer necessities for said product;

Could you explain what you mean by 'price elasticity of demand'? There are many products with inelastic demand that, in my opinion, shouldn't be protected from an ethical tariff.

3.d) Reaffirms that the Ethical Commission can rule a zero-percentage of a product's market value as being an acceptable tariff if their considerations (ex. necessity goods) suggest that a robust tariff would be unethical and/or unfair;

This seems a bit over-complicated to me. Why not just say the ETC (p.s. you wrote 'Ethical Commission' instead of 'Ethical Trade Commission') can exempt these thing from a tariff and save some characters?

- Dr. B. Castro

@GR: I know what the guide says; I helped to write it. But there's a reason the guide stresses the "but it's not a good idea" part. It's because we as experienced players don't want to encourage bad RP, and that's what your previous post to the Black Knight (or whatever his name is) seemed to be doing.

OOC: Oh, I don't want to encourage bad RP. I think "I DON'T THIS LIKE THIS, SO I'M IGNORING IT," is just as ignore-worthy as declaring war on the World Assembly. I just get a little annoyed when people essentially say there's no such thing as non-compliance.

[Unibot]

* Price elasticity of demand, and consumer necessities for said product;

Could you explain what you mean by 'price elasticity of demand'? There are many products with inelastic demand that, in my opinion, shouldn't be protected from an ethical tariff.

Price elasticity needs to be considered for a tariff, because a tariff on Soda pop is going to affect the brand more so than a tariff on Petroleum. People change sodas more so than gas providers when the prices are raised. It doesn't say however if a product is inelastic that it will be exempt, but elasticity is being factored into whatever tariff the commission decides.

3.d) Reaffirms that the Ethical Commission can rule a zero-percentage of a product's market value as being an acceptable tariff if their considerations (ex. necessity goods) suggest that a robust tariff would be unethical and/or unfair;

This seems a bit over-complicated to me. Why not just say the ETC (p.s. you wrote 'Ethical Commission' instead of 'Ethical Trade Commission') can exempt these thing from a tariff and save some characters?

- Dr. B. Castro

I'll edit it if I'm over the word count. My philosophy is, the people aren't being provided these rights, so the tariff still applies.. the gesture is symbolic, perhaps, but still existing. But I prefer that over an 'exemption', which makes it sounds as if the World Assembly 'tolerates' what they're doing, all it is that we are compassionate to their situation, not tolerant.

And I'll implement an acronym.

[Unibot]

bump!

[The Black Plains]

* Price elasticity of demand, and consumer necessities for said product;

Could you explain what you mean by 'price elasticity of demand'? There are many products with inelastic demand that, in my opinion, shouldn't be protected from an ethical tariff.

Price elasticity needs to be considered for a tariff, because a tariff on Soda pop is going to affect the brand more so than a tariff on Petroleum. People change sodas more so than gas providers when the prices are raised. It doesn't say however if a product is inelastic that it will be exempt, but elasticity is being factored into whatever tariff the commission decides.

3.d) Reaffirms that the Ethical Commission can rule a zero-percentage of a product's market value as being an acceptable tariff if their considerations (ex. necessity goods) suggest that a robust tariff would be unethical and/or unfair;

This seems a bit over-complicated to me. Why not just say the ETC (p.s. you wrote 'Ethical Commission' instead of 'Ethical Trade Commission') can exempt these thing from a tariff and save some characters?

- Dr. B. Castro

I'll edit it if I'm over the word count. My philosophy is, the people aren't being provided these rights, so the tariff still applies.. the gesture is symbolic, perhaps, but still existing. But I prefer that over an 'exemption', which makes it sounds as if the World Assembly 'tolerates' what they're doing, all it is that we are compassionate to their situation, not tolerant.

And I'll implement an acronym.

I'm a sucker for a good acronym. Despite all the economic hogwash I said earlier, if you applied a good acronym anywhere in this legislation I'd probably vote for it... Peter Cantrell who had just appeared out of nowhere in an undefined room in an undefined building in an undefined country at an undefined time without ever having arrived in the first place said. (Dude it's totally like Inception)

[Unibot]

* Price elasticity of demand, and consumer necessities for said product;

Could you explain what you mean by 'price elasticity of demand'? There are many products with inelastic demand that, in my opinion, shouldn't be protected from an ethical tariff.

Price elasticity needs to be considered for a tariff, because a tariff on Soda pop is going to affect the brand more so than a tariff on Petroleum. People change sodas more so than gas providers when the prices are raised. It doesn't say however if a product is inelastic that it will be exempt, but elasticity is being factored into whatever tariff the commission decides.

3.d) Reaffirms that the Ethical Commission can rule a zero-percentage of a product's market value as being an acceptable tariff if their considerations (ex. necessity goods) suggest that a robust tariff would be unethical and/or unfair;

This seems a bit over-complicated to me. Why not just say the ETC (p.s. you wrote 'Ethical Commission' instead of 'Ethical Trade Commission') can exempt these thing from a tariff and save some characters?

- Dr. B. Castro

I'll edit it if I'm over the word count. My philosophy is, the people aren't being provided these rights, so the tariff still applies.. the gesture is symbolic, perhaps, but still existing. But I prefer that over an 'exemption', which makes it sounds as if the World Assembly 'tolerates' what they're doing, all it is that we are compassionate to their situation, not tolerant.

And I'll implement an acronym.

I'm a sucker for a good acronym. Despite all the economic hogwash I said earlier, if you applied a good acronym anywhere in this legislation I'd probably vote for it... Peter Cantrell who had just appeared out of nowhere in an undefined room in an undefined building in an undefined country at an undefined time without ever having arrived in the first place said. (Dude it's totally like Inception)

*spins a top on NS*
*waits for it to land*

While I'm waiting for the top to topple, I guess I'll add an acronym then. Oh and I've got a ..er..history with acronyms.

[The Black Plains]

While I'm waiting for the top to topple, I guess I'll add an acronym then. Oh and I've got a ..er..history with acronyms.

You're now officially my favorite person, Peter said as he smoked a cigar that he had materialized from nothing.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I have too little time available today (or even this week...) to comment again in much detail, but think that I may have spotted a point that you'll think this proposal should also cover... Shouldn't this proposal's effects be extended to cover all goods that were produced by child labour?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Price elasticity needs to be considered for a tariff, because a tariff on Soda pop is going to affect the brand more so than a tariff on Petroleum. People change sodas more so than gas providers when the prices are raised. It doesn't say however if a product is inelastic that it will be exempt, but elasticity is being factored into whatever tariff the commission decides.

I'm still not sure why elasticity needs to be considered. If a nation is getting gasoline from a source that would deserve an ethical tariff, why should there be an exemption, or why would the Commission even consider an exemption, just because there's little demand elasticity? And if a product being inelastic does not exempt it, why consider demand elasticity at all?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Unibot]

OOC: I have too little time available today (or even this week...) to comment again in much detail, but think that I may have spotted a point that you'll think this proposal should also cover... Shouldn't this proposal's effects be extended to cover all goods that were produced by child labour?

That's a very very good point, Bears. In my track of my mind that adults tend to get ignored by the mass media in these 'quasi-slave' operations by multinational companies, I forgot about the kids. I'll try and compose something fitting...

2. Further imposes an ethical tariff on any good that is manufactured, created or recovered by those who do not have the capacity to complete the workload of their occupation, and remain in good mental and physical health [because of biological restraints];

One, would this do the job?
Two, would the red portion be necessary?

I tried to make it to cover elderly people, and not just children.

Price elasticity needs to be considered for a tariff, because a tariff on Soda pop is going to affect the brand more so than a tariff on Petroleum. People change sodas more so than gas providers when the prices are raised. It doesn't say however if a product is inelastic that it will be exempt, but elasticity is being factored into whatever tariff the commission decides.

I'm still not sure why elasticity needs to be considered. If a nation is getting gasoline from a source that would deserve an ethical tariff, why should there be an exemption, or why would the Commission even consider an exemption, just because there's little demand elasticity? And if a product being inelastic does not exempt it, why consider demand elasticity at all?

- Dr. B. Castro

Whoa, no, Dr. Castro, you're getting that clause confused, that clause is not only about exemptions, but just factors that the Commission has to consider when deciding the specific percentage of the tax. Elasticity helps to determine the amount of the tax, not necessarily an exception. Read it again, and If I need to make this clearer in the draft, just tell me.

[Unibot]

Okay, so I've updated the resolution...

1. Imposes an ethical and ad valorem tariff on any imported good or resource that features one or several of the following criteria:

Said imported goods or resources were manufactured, recovered or generated by those (excluding non-sentient employees, ex. Automata) who do not have,
1.a) The capacity to complete the workload of their occupation, while continuing to actively pursue an education and/or remain in a dignified state of mental and physical health;
1.b) An entitlement to,

• Clean water, sanitation and/or nutrition;
• Assured security --while at their workplace-- from violence, rape, abuse, poisoning and torture from people related to their workplace;
• Sleep, recovery, leisure and rest;
• Equal treatment and/or income, regardless of gender, citizenship, birthplace, appearance, religion and/or sexual orientation;
• Fair and just remuneration for the work they provide, that will ensure them and their dependents a dignified existence, if no social protection exists for them otherwise;

.. note the new clause 1.a, which is my address to child and elderly labor with consideration to the differences in biological age and development across NationStates.

How am I doing?

[The Black Plains]

Though we at the Black Plains are well-reknowned for our treatment of our workers and support this legislation in idea, we do have some qualms as to the implementation.

If the workers refuse to pay into their pension plan then how do you expect the employer to provide them with the rest that you mentioned in later life?

Furthermore we question how one can prove their sexual orientation. This ambassador will, however, keep that in mind as an excuse if he is relieved of his position. And even if you can document that there is still no way to prove what cause was had for the firing in the first place. Furthermore who determines what a fair and equal wage is? Men consume more food and water than women, but women are typically forced to purchase marked-up clothing while college students may have a plethora of other costs to deal with. Dorm rooms, school books, school software, note-taking material, computer devices etc. etc. I suppose if a forty year old man, a forty year old woman, and a man in college were all making the same amount the woman would complain that the man her age was making more money per expense than she was (a valid complaint) and the college student that he was making the least of all them per expense. Ultimately the decision comes to a bureaucratic rubber-stamper in the freshly minted office of the "ETC:. If this bepedestaled pencil-pusher does his job proficiently then, of course, he will decide that this situation is abhorrently unfair (since your legislation has already set a precedent for "livable wages") and that costs of living must be taken into account for wages to truly be "fair". And still I have no illusions that if a situation were brought before the same bureaucratic hawker in which the female worker were making a wage scaled to her expenses the man and the college student would be complaining and, of course, the situation would be righted by the just hand of world governance. By leaving "fair wages" undefined (I don't believe you mention performance of employees...) all you are doing is giving more power to the petty bureaucrat who already has a Napoleon complex.

I protest louder still at the idea of your commission having full reign as to the tariff placed on the imports and exports. Although your intentions may be pure, the execution in this regard is slightly lacking. Your "ETC" exists solely to root out ethical violations wherever they may exist. The more ethical violations they punish, the more revenue they rake in the slots, the more "abusive" companies they damn to financial ruin, the more funding they get. They have an inherent motivation to place utterly draconian tariffs on even the most questionable of "unethical" products. I hope that Police and Fire departments in Unibot do not decide their own budgets as you would have this "ETC" do.

The method you propose for policing is little better than this. The same agency that made the decision in the first place then has the duty of looking back and judging if it in fact made the correct choice? This system is rank with corruption and tramples the very idea of an appeals system. That is, to get another opinion. A higher one preferably. The currently mentioned system will undoubtedly lead to stagnation and an overpowered commission.

In conclusion, just as much as the Black Plains would be honored to be considered a compliant nation on the world scale... much in the way that a Bull would be honored to be considered an Ox... we would much rather keep what is ours.

James Vasinta,
Liaison to the World Assembly

[Unibot]

Economic dignity of all beings has to be represented through the valuing of their work regardless of those superficial generalizations (ex. Men eat more ).

I will consider however, the funding going to non-profit organisations, other than the WA.. for the purposes of humanitarian programs. Would this be acceptable?

[Unibot]

Also your claim that business cannot survey employees on the basis of their sexual orientation is a strawman.. if businesses are encouraged not to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, then they don't have to do any sort of discovery, because the fact of one's homosexuality wouldn't be actionable for said business anyway!

[Ardchoille]

Okay. Sorry the legality check took so long, but the lawyers were on strike. We tried to get them to extend it (the economy took an immediate upturn), but they insisted on going back to work.

So, let 's take it from the top. The WA already has a proposal authored by Krioval forbidding restrictions on international trade, here.

The legality hurdles Unibot's proposal has to jump are:

1. Is what he's trying to do legal at all, since it involves trade with non-WA nations?
2. If it is legal on that count, does it conflict with Krioval's resolution?

On the first one, yes, it's legal. The WA is making only WA nations impose the tariff. The proposal doesn't define which nations it is imposed on, other than saying it must be those that don't produce goods in an ethical fashion (which he then defines). It doesn't matter that the tariff itself may affect both WA and non-WA nations. The proposal that imposes the tariff is strictly confined to WA nations. (There was a similar ruling to this effect on Jolt, too.)

On the second one, the hurdle boils down to this clause in Krioval's:

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

These were what saved Krioval's proposal from being ruled illegal as a blocker. It did not completely block all restrictions on commerce, it just severely limited the circumstances in which restriction could happen.

Unibot's is definitely a proposal in which commerce is generally (as opposed to specifically) restricted by the WA. So, if it's to survive, he has to rely on the second clause: "2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations."

There are two contentious phrases there: "extreme hazard" and "national populations". Let's take the second first.

Krioval said in the debate, not in the resolution itself, that he intended that line to protect WA nations' populations:

New legislation designed to restrict economic freedoms must have a compelling aim to reduce danger to citizens of WA nations.

What it actually said in the resolution, though, was just "national populations". And those words aren't the object of the resolution's action (forbidding restrictions on commerce), they're the object of the verb in an adjectival clause -- which (trade) enterprise is exempt from the legislation? The (trade) enterprise that causes extreme hazard to national populations.

So I think we have to accept that yes, despite Krioval's declared intention, the words of his resolution can be read as referring to any nation's population, WA or non-WA.

Next: do the listed conditions (if they occur in the enterprise) cause extreme hazard?

We could go through the conditions and consider them one by one, and I think that we could reasonably conclude that some of them do in some cases: sleepy workers in a fireworks factory; working conditions so harsh they are likely to cause a revolt, which could spread to a civil war, etc. And there's even a committee that could be tasked with judging each specific case.

But mods (and delegates) shouldn't be required to interpret a proposal to the extent of trying to make it legal. It should already be legal.

The solution would be for the proposal itself to tell us that the legality requirements were met; that those conditions were, in fact, conditions that cause extreme hazard. Then the GA itself can consider the point, rightly making that question part of the debate -- are they hazardous? To whom?

Much to my chagrin, because I thought I was very clever to think of this, someone already came up with it in the original debate. First cab off the rank was Glen-Rhodes:

(OOC: So I can institute any kind of commerce regulation, so long as I say "BELIEVING such-and-such to be an extreme hazard to national populations"?)

And then came New Rockport:

It would seem to me that future resolutions restricting commerce could get around this by including the following preambulatory clause:

FINDING that [commerce to be restricted] causes an extreme hazard to national populations

Krioval answered:

Pretty much. The Imperial Chiefdom realizes the futility in trying to ban WA legislation on economic issues in the future. Instead, this clause is merely to promote more rigorous debate on such proposals, and to ensure that regulations are not arbitrary or capricious, but that they safeguard the citizens of WA states.

So, for Unibot's query: Note that Krioval's original resolution is not illegal, first because it's been adopted as a resolution, so it's legal, ipso facto; second, because it's not a blocker.
As to your proposal, there's no need to repeal Krioval's, but to make yours fit its requirements, you need some terminology along the lines suggested in the original debate.
Also, to soothe my inner sub-editor:

"the aforementioned criteria that were was stipulated previously in c.1;"

"its reasonable capacity to provide laborer's laborers with ... "

I note that you've used "ex" as an abbreviation for "for example". I kept reading it as "ex" meaning "former" -- "ex-automata"; "ex-necessity goods". Is this now contemporary American usage, in place of the standard abbreviation "eg" (exempli gratia)? N/m if it is, it just caused a mental bump when the wheels went over it.

Oh, and the acronym ETC passes muster.

[The Black Plains]

Economic dignity of all beings has to be represented through the valuing of their work regardless of those superficial generalizations (ex. Men eat more ).

I will consider however, the funding going to non-profit organisations, other than the WA.. for the purposes of humanitarian programs. Would this be acceptable?

Perhaps if you fixed the half-dozen glaringly obvious problems with your legislation it would be enough to attain an affirmative vote... although we WILL encourage your step in the right direction by acknowledging it as a very very good step in the right direction. It makes your commission far less ominous and may convince us to abstain from voting as opposed to casting a negative vote.