Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Gallia-]

Just make them Amish or something.

In 2200 there will be slightly over 200 million Amish

At least when technological civilization/capitalism burns itself out and we're left with the husks of a dead civilization dotting the landscape, the Amish will still be able to toil the land and return us to the roots of America: puritan earth tilling. The true strategic depth of America reveals itself. That is, assuming that techno-civilization hasn't poisoned the Earth to uninhabitability by then with heavy metals and groundwater pollution.

[Taihei Tengoku]

In 2200 there will be slightly over 200 million Amish

At least when technological civilization/capitalism burns itself out and we're left with the husks of a dead civilization dotting the landscape, the Amish will still be able to toil the land and return us to the roots of America: puritan earth tilling. The true strategic depth of America reveals itself. That is, assuming that techno-civilization hasn't poisoned the Earth to uninhabitability by then with heavy metals and groundwater pollution.

stratfor_was_right.txt

[Gallia-]

The future wars will be fought by Amish charioteers and Chinese rice peasants, with Haredis acting as the interlocutors who are actually playing both sides.

Legend of Groundsoil Heroes.

Five hundred motorized junks vs. the hyperintelligent, autonomous naval minefield inhabiting the Suez Canal
Ten thousand plows and ox-teams vs. n hectares of quality North American nitrated soil
Thirty thousand cannons vs. The Jewish Quarter

Meme Meister Amish Hero leads ten thousand Amish pitchfork men to victory against thirty thousand Chinese musketeers and becomes a hero of agrarian democracy before said democracy is defeated by bankruptcy from owing the Haredis TEN BILLION NEO-RENMINBI and the subsequent conquest of the Haredis by the 1st, 101st, and 82nd Ground Divisions and 1st Motor Junk Fleet of the Celestial Empire

Even after the death of all techno-cyber-civilization liberal democracy can't catch a break in this grim world where authoritarianism will always triumph because liberals have degenerated into literal Hegelian determinism

[Averland-Jorland]

cars were banned in metropolitan reasons for safety reasons

This is retarded.

You're more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime in the US than to be hit by a car in a year.

Cars are dangerous, and there are good reasons to limit them in metropolitan areas and in general, but there has never been a modern city - i.e. one built after the period in which cars became common - that decided to ban them in the whole city because they were dangerous, because that's a dumb idea.

[Romanian Germany]

Why are we talking about real life

Are we? Are we really?

Or are we talking about something beyond the humdrum realm of normality, something so vast and glorious it would explode the minds of the sheeple if they were to become aware of it?

Come! You have twitched curtains that blind the world and caught a glimpse of what lies beyond the veil, it is time to embrace the next level...

I can do creativity if thats what Your talking about

[Romanian Germany]

Truly guys I would like to do Politics in Nation States It just seems Right!

[Kazarogkai]

cars were banned in metropolitan reasons for safety reasons

This is retarded.

You're more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime in the US than to be hit by a car in a year.

Cars are dangerous, and there are good reasons to limit them in metropolitan areas and in general, but there has never been a modern city - i.e. one built after the period in which cars became common - that decided to ban them in the whole city because they were dangerous, because that's a dumb idea.

Take it up with the previous poster, He was asking about banning cars entirely in the country entirely. I was just making mention of a weird tongue and cheek Tl idea that I came up with a while ago.

[Crookfur]

Are we? Are we really?

Or are we talking about something beyond the humdrum realm of normality, something so vast and glorious it would explode the minds of the sheeple if they were to become aware of it?

Come! You have twitched curtains that blind the world and caught a glimpse of what lies beyond the veil, it is time to embrace the next level...

I can do creativity if thats what Your talking about

Not really, i was just ina weird mood that night so thigns got a little snarky.

basically this thread is to ask about and discuss various facets of your nation and wether or not your ideas are realistic. As our only real point of reference as to what might be realistic or not is Real Life (RL) you tend to see lots of discussion on reals tuff, particularly if its an area that can have different veiw points.

basically you ask for help or throw your tuppence worth in when soemone else does and it spirals from there.

[Yohannes]

Got some thought that I am planning to incorporate into Yohannes the nation state. [2nd edit: thread in question, aha: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=422765 ] Uhm... regarding commercialisation (and its issues). Too much corporatisation or privatisation of state agencies, would it be realistic to claim that too much of that would diminish executive and bureaucratic power? Also, I personally believe another issue of commercialisation is that the need for judicial review will be reduced as well (so less accountability before the judicature or courts)

Uhm... now that we have got there. Market efficiencies in real life as we can see have touched public administration in all common law countries (if there is one common law country in real life that hasn't experienced it substantially, please do tell me here as I might have missed that country, aha) and we all can see that the trend of corporatisation of state functions tend to go along together (or around the same time) with extensive market and financial services deregulation. Well, I want to claim that that causality isn't there for the nineteen countries. Uhm... but I am [edit: not sure] sure whether I can claim that or not (I can always make it up anyway). Want to see people's opinion about that

Also another thing: market reforms reducing the role of government. But, the need for accountability system/mechanism not affected at all. I know it should increase in real life, but wondering if I can claim that it won't increase in NationStates. I am thinking a codification must be put somewhere (possibly by bringing a bill forward to amend an existing act in state-owned enterprise matters), but uhmm... wanna try to stretch the realism barrier a bit by pretending it won't... aha

[Allanea]

In my mind, with deregulation the role of the judicial system should actually increase, because many disputes that would not arise at all (because the action in question wouldn't be permitted), or be resolved by regulator, would now go to court and ve resolved by a civil suit.

[Yohannes]

In my mind, with deregulation the role of the judicial system should actually increase, because many disputes that would not arise at all (because the action in question wouldn't be permitted), or be resolved by regulator, would now go to court and ve resolved by a civil suit.

Theoretically, it should, but in practice (in my view, anyway, aha...)

According to Taylor & Timmins (1989) and Taggart (1986), under the New Zealand corporatisation and privatisation programmes that began in the mid-1980s, many of the Crown's former trading functions were transferred to state-owned enterprises or on-sold to private interests. Certain academics and private law consultants argued that these developments diminished executive and bureaucratic power; and reduced the need for review by the judicature. However, according to Cooke (1987), commercialising public functions does not alter the nature of the public service provided or the service-provider's market position - that is, monopoly or near-monopoly supplier - or the public's dependence on essential services. Further, in accordance with Hamilton City Council versus Waikato Electricity Authority (1994), the market reforms revealed to everyone that the public or private law divide and challenged the rationale and scope of judicial review; that is, market reforms have reduced the role of government, but intensified the need for accountability before the court, or any such accountability mechanism in-built within the executive.

In accordance with the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, a public functions rationale of review by the judicature holds the fact of ownership, as irrelevant -- whether an entity is publicly owned and managed, that is, government trading entities; or privatised, that is, public held entities. In accordance with that act of parliament, abuse of dominant position is an abuse regardless if the perpetrator is a publicly-owned entity or a privately owned entity.

Should review by the judicature follow the new entities into the deregulated environment? In accordance with Auckland Electric Power Board versus Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited, a state owned enterprise must be, quote, as profitable and effi as comperr buznz that are not owna ba het Crown, unquote, and be, quote, an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community i wh i operaze, unquote. In accordance with The State Owned Enterprises Act 1986, a codification is needed to codify the tension by giving state-owned enterprises two way statutory status and a limited liability privilege. This in effect to allow them to meet two potentially irreconcilable objectives: profit whilst providing good public service in dah interests of mens at the same time.

In accordance with the Mercury Energy Case (1986), the Court of Appeal held that the stipulation to exhibit a sense of social responsibility was unenforceable through review by the judicature, or by civil action. Auckland Electric Power Board versus Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited (1994) further reinforced this fact, as well as Wellington Regional Council versus Post Office Bank Limited (1989)

Edit: Uhm... if you want the full names of the references, feel free to ask, aha. I am just in a hurry at the moment in real life... so uhm I will reference fully later if required aha...

[Allanea]

But now you've moved the goalposts somewhat, at least in my view, by introducing something as nebulous as 'social responsibility'.

There are essentially two ways in which undesirable activities by businesses can be seriously curtailed:

1. You pre-emptively ban them by regulation. Say, you make it illegal to store a given product other than in refrigerators, and you inspect businesses regularly to ensure they comply, and have various administrative or even criminal penalties.

2. You ban them through civil law or precedent. That's to say, if the product is stored other than in refrigerators, those harmed by it (for instance, via health problems they acquire through eating it) can sue the company and demand compensation.

Basically all the world's regulatory systems divide between relying on 1 or 2. (If you have neither of these, then the activity is going to persist if it is at all seen as profitable).

[Gallia-]

1 is the ideal were it not for "declining tax revenues". ):

[Allanea]

The obvious problem with 2 is that, one, corporations are really good at fighting off lawsuits, and two, if your activity is something that's sociall undesirable but people wouldn't actually sue over, then obviously it's inappropriate.

On the other hand, the obvious problem with 1 is that when over done it screws over both economic growth and tax revenue.

[Yohannes]

---

I am writing for a post in my Reichstag Debates/Hansard thread at the moment (aha), so I will reply to your post later Allanea; but just to assure you that I am ideologically neutral. I am more than open to seeing and agreeing with your point of view, aha. That report was based on evidence presented before the appellate court.

@Galla: haha

[Gallia-]

The obvious problem with 2 is that, one, corporations are really good at fighting off lawsuits, and two, if your activity is something that's sociall undesirable but people wouldn't actually sue over, then obviously it's inappropriate.

On the other hand, the obvious problem with 1 is that when over done it screws over both economic growth and tax revenue.

This is true.

Consider egg storage, in the United States eggs are refrigerated, while in Europe they are stored in pantries. So consider perhaps the problem of egg sellers selling their eggs in an open market stand like fruits or some such. It's not really clear if those chickens/eggs have been vaccinated against salmonella (or perhaps the creation of a drug resistant salmonella lmao) so they might be carriers, which is why the USA demands all eggs are washing (destroying the cuticle that protects the egg), irradiated, and refrigerated to prevent regrowth of salmonella.

There are tons more problems with 2 than with 1, but the problems are less impactful in terms of magnitude. Sufficient bad publicity might force a corporation to react to it by adopting "social responsibility" to protect its consumer base from heading/flocking to a competitor. 1 has problems of magnitude maybe, but if the government is fairly level headed and reasonable then it shouldn't be a huge concern. OTOH, changing governments tends to upset this cycle if you get a true nutjob in office who thinks the health department should be disbanded, or that we need immediate conscription for health inspectors.

OTOH, regulations requiring vaccination of chickens is reasonable. It's something the USA lacks, which is why it has an occasional outbreak of it in eggs and why it treats eggs so weirdly compared to the rest of the world. This could be enforced by a health inspection team every so often and probably not damage the economy or hurt egg producers very much. Chickens are not expensive animals and are more or less the most :mass production: creature on Earth since all parts can be used.

So I guess it comes down whether or not you trust the democratic institutions and Nation Mind to provide for the safety of the people (thus, lean more towards 1) or whether or not you think that it should be more of a hands-off approach that is settled through traditional legislative means (thus, lean more towards 2).

The USA is such a strongly common law country (really, the Supreme Court has defended America's liberty and democracy as often as the Congress and the President have tried to usurp it, if not more) that it tends to lean towards 2, but it may also be an economic decision, since the USA is very large and having enough health inspectors to ensure that every industrial chicken farm is going to vaccinate and every egg is irradiated would be rapidly expensive because you need to cover orders of magnitude more organizations, land area, and people.

[Taihei Tengoku]

2 is the Coasean solution to externalities, 1 is the Pigouvian. A Pigouvian tax eliminates a negative externality without deadweight loss but people are rather imperfect at determining what exactly is Pigouvian and what the actual tax point is.

[Allanea]

2 is the Coasean solution to externalities, 1 is the Pigouvian. A Pigouvian tax eliminates a negative externality without deadweight loss but people are rather imperfect at determining what exactly is Pigouvian and what the actual tax point is.

Isn't a Pigouvian solution to externalities just 'tax it and use the proceeds to pay for the externalities', rather than 'prohibit the activity'?

[Taihei Tengoku]

2 is the Coasean solution to externalities, 1 is the Pigouvian. A Pigouvian tax eliminates a negative externality without deadweight loss but people are rather imperfect at determining what exactly is Pigouvian and what the actual tax point is.

Isn't a Pigouvian solution to externalities just 'tax it and use the proceeds to pay for the externalities', rather than 'prohibit the activity'?

Yes, but regulation is just another way to enforce a penalty (compliance costs) on externalities

[Austrasien]

Trying to define regulations in terms of the concept of a Pigovian tax contributes nothing to understanding. It actually gets us further from understanding because there is no longer any way to easily distinguish between a genuine Pigovian tax solution - levy an egg tax and use the proceeds to pay for the treatment of people who get food poisoning from eggs or something like that - and regulatory or civil law approaches like has already described. Which is really the distinction Pigovian tax was introduced to describe.

[Yohannes]

But now you've moved the goalposts somewhat

In a way, I was not though. According to Sir Robin Cooke's "Foreword", in Gray and McClintock's Courts and Policy: Checking the Balance (my apologies, can't find Google Books stuff showing their work; that's the closest internet mention of them), and the 1987 New Zealand Law Conference Papers "Judicial review for error of law", social responsibility go hand in hand with state owned enterprises' (or any newly privatised state trading bodies) capacity to be reviewed by the judicature. And under the Appeal court ruling (that I have said in my previous post), it showed that in practice, the court cannot enforced that through judicial review or civil action, and as one must go with the other (profitable and social responsibility), thus as it stands, any thoroughly corporatised or privatised bodies released for or sold to private interests are outside the scope of public law challenges (unfortunately that's a British website, so might not be relevant somewhat)

Then, (and surprisingly in a turn around move) the then Privy Council restored the right of public law challenge (in accordance with the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and common law too). The Privy Council, however, also very strictly restricted the grounds of challenge in the 1994 case of Mercury Energy Limited versus Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited. This was also before the Supreme Court was established in New Zealand, so there might be changes after that, but I will have to look up more related papers at my campus library to make sure what I say (in relation to changes) is grounded in reality, as it actually happened

From my understanding, the United States (I am not familiar with the US, so if Americans here can correct me in case what I say here is totally wrong, please do so! Aha) don't rely much on the use of state owned enterprises or quangos (or related stuff for you American people) as some commonwealth countries do (Australia's leaning closer to the US in a way, with NZ being the least privatised from what I am seeing). I was reading quite a good book (not just some random book) by an American author about Congress-President-Judicature dynamics and politics in USA (and related things, like government involvement in industry, forgot the name of the author; though I can always go visit the campus library and check again, probably this upcoming weekend, aha) and she said that the US is pretty much the most privatised of all the major developed countries in the world. So the dynamics on the ground are somewhat different than here (Australia might be the closest match with you guys! But even I am not very sure on that one, if there's Australians here who can disapprove it'd be swell~)

Now here is the good part: According to "Public Utilities and Public Law", in P A Joseph's Essays on the Constitution (Brookers, 1995), some members (not just office cleaners or court clerks, but actually retired judges) of the judicature and of course... political commentators (what do you expect anyway? Media commentators can predict silly things... like Donald Trump was just a joke candidate; note: I am personally neutral/a bit against his policies and his behaviour. I don't support Trump so please don't treat that sentence as if I am supporting him aha...) propose adopting a public utilities regime like the United States, where publicly listed corporations exercising public functions may be judicially reviewed (this would support what you say, Allanea)

Support for such a regime may be found in Sir Matthew Hale's treatise on seaports and customs, or specifically De Portibus Maris (literally 'The Ports of the Sea'). It summarised the principle of "business affected with public interests" and the common law doctrine of common calling or prime necessity (another good link I found from lazy browsing just now that is somewhat related). Under Sir Matthew's principle, common law enforced obligations on monopoly suppliers of important commodities (electricity, water treatment?) to maintain supply to the public at fair and reasonable prices. According to him, "when conveniences are affected with a public interest they cease to be juris privati only". According to Tagart (1986), the ancient law of common callings also recognised public obligations on private operators to maintain essential services, without discrimination, at fair prices.

I don't want to quote an entire court report here (aha... and also I want to write some in character stuff for my Reichstag Debates/Hansard thread with the somewhat limited time I have to browse NationStates today), so I will just summarise now: basically, the report concluded that New Zealand in general hasn't borrowed the general doctrine of US utilities law, or resurrect ancient common law doctrines; that is, the practice of generally checking commercial decisions made by state-owned enterprises. In New Zealand, as some cases that I have listed (and many more), the majority of cases concluded that commercial entities such as publicly listed companies doing business for the public (important ones; electricity, water treatment, and others) are exempt from judicial review. Although, in some cases (especially lately), the courts involved have emphasised the importance (bad for the public, not good) of commercialised public functions, and the consequences to the public coming from such commercial decisions.

So, basically, in theory the commercial decisions of corporatised or privatised trading entities are reviewable, but in practice, not reviewable. However, the Appeal Court established that "where the exercise of power is in substance public or has important public consequences", it is then reviewable. Meaning, if the company is very big (I don't know, anyone roleplay a really big company in NationStates?) then its actions are easily reviewable before the court. But if not very big (relative to the nation state, maybe?), then it's not. Therefore, with deregulation the role of the judicial system should decrease, at least in my view (though I understand where you are coming from)

There are essentially two ways in which undesirable activities by businesses can be seriously curtailed:

1. You pre-emptively ban them by regulation. Say, you make it illegal to store a given product other than in refrigerators, and you inspect businesses regularly to ensure they comply, and have various administrative or even criminal penalties.

2. You ban them through civil law or precedent. That's to say, if the product is stored other than in refrigerators, those harmed by it (for instance, via health problems they acquire through eating it) can sue the company and demand compensation.

Basically all the world's regulatory systems divide between relying on 1 or 2. (If you have neither of these, then the activity is going to persist if it is at all seen as profitable).

I personally like number one better. Taihei Tengoku, can I realistically roleplay/storytell that out for my nation state whilst pretending that I don't overdo it at the same time?

And thank you so much for your comments! (everyone) I like seeing interesting discussion happening

[Welskerland]

What role do state churches play in a nation? The Church of Welskerland is Reformed (Calvinist theology, and similar to Presbyterianism in doctrine and structure) and is the official religion of the nation and the monarch. Of course, it is tax exempt, but do countries with state churches extend this tax exemption to other denominations or does it only apply to the national church?

[The Akasha Colony]

What role do state churches play in a nation? The Church of Welskerland is Reformed (Calvinist theology, and similar to Presbyterianism in doctrine and structure) and is the official religion of the nation and the monarch. Of course, it is tax exempt, but do countries with state churches extend this tax exemption to other denominations or does it only apply to the national church?

There is no single policy. It depends on whether and to what extent the government accepts and recognizes the existence of other religious denominations within its borders.

The Church of England is not only tax-exempt but is taxpayer subsidized, in part because it has a massive collection of historic buildings whose maintenance would put it underwater on its own. These buildings are required to be preserved anyway regardless of owner so it's not entirely a favored giveaway. But other recognized religious organizations are also tax-exempt since while there's a state church, like other liberal democracies there's freedom of worship.

Some European countries (e.g. Germany, Italy) still have church taxes in which the government may collect taxes directly from a citizen's income and allocate it to the church of their choice among those recognized by the government. In the past, this was allocated to the state church but these days it's either optional (collected only from those who declare religious affiliation, as in Germany) or has a secular option (the Italian tax is not optional but taxpayers can choose to allocate their money to the Italian government rather than a church).

Religiously restrictive nations like many Muslim nations in the Middle East unsurprisingly take a less pluralistic view. They might not quite fit the definition of a "state church" but unsurprisingly nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia don't extend many niceties to religious organizations outside the control of the state clergy. Although in those cases, it's less of a "state church" and more of a "church state" with little or no distinction between the state and religious authorities. So I'm not sure if it's a completely relevant example.

[Allanea]

I personally like number one better. Taihei Tengoku, can I realistically roleplay/storytell that out for my nation state whilst pretending that I don't overdo it at the same time?

And thank you so much for your comments! (everyone) I like seeing interesting discussion happening

It's reasonable I think to have it not be overdone - consider any number of European nations which are highly regulated as compared to the USA/UK, but are still not incredible bureaucratic morasses like some third-world countries are.

To some extent, a country is kept from becoming an over-regulated morass like some third-world economies by the desire of governments and their constituents for economic growth, and by solid legal institutions. There are of course vast differences between countries - say, France is more heavily regulated economically than Germany - but by and large European countries manage to have reasonably prosperous economies.

[Yohannes]

It's reasonable I think to have it not be overdone - consider any number of European nations which are highly regulated as compared to the USA/UK, but are still not incredible bureaucratic morasses like some third-world countries are.

To some extent, a country is kept from becoming an over-regulated morass like some third-world economies by the desire of governments and their constituents for economic growth, and by solid legal institutions. There are of course vast differences between countries - say, France is more heavily regulated economically than Germany - but by and large European countries manage to have reasonably prosperous economies.

I will read and think about it thoroughly once I am done with my post. Just want to say thank you for your help! Aha (I should probably, uhm, edit my previous post to include other people, not just Taihei Tengoku)