Free Trade Liberation Act

by **Libertorum** » Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:01 pm

DISCLAIMER-
This is not an act of support of free trade, However it should be allowed to prosper!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal proposes that free trade shall not be banned and or prosecuted in any country under the establishment of the WA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means that free trade will be legal in all countries, Regardless of type of government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will not affect any country in any major way, Therefore it's status as mild.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So please, Vote to libertate free trade!

Ideas, Thoughts..?

by **Libertorum** » Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:05 pm

DISCLAIMER-
This is not an act of support of free trade, However it should be allowed to prosper!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal proposes that free trade shall not be banned and or prosecuted in any country under the establishment of the WA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means that free trade will be legal in all countries, Regardless of type of government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will not affect any country in any major way, Therefore it's status as mild.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So please, Vote to libertate free trade!

Ideas, Thoughts..?

by **Artibus Iustitia** » Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:37 pm

"Free trade and relations with other nations are valuable to a nation's economy. From my perspective, very few modern systems of government would be hindered by compulsory free trade. For that reason, I agree that this should be passed."

"However, we cannot take too many liberties from individual states regarding trade. We must make it clear that it's legal to embargo goods to and from certain countries, under certain conditions. For example, we should still be free to embargo goods from countries that we are at war with."

by **Araraukar** » Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:48 pm

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

What you have here isn't quite what GA proposals should look like. Wording like "This proposal proposes" doesn't quite cut it. You're trying to write an international law, not a gentle suggestion. Also, the "This will not affect any country in any major way" claim is bullshit as any nation with, for example, state-controlled economy, would undergo major upheaval.

Furthermore, while it looks like you have some vague idea of categories and strengths, just saying "free trade for everyone" doesn't actually do anything. You need to spell out exactly what the "free trade" would include.

I suggest you have a look through the passed resolutions to see the common format types used for resolutions.

I would also suggest that you abandon this, hang around here to partake other proposals' debate threads and build a better understanding of the GA works, before attempting to write a proposal yourself.

by **Calladan** » Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:53 pm

I am not entirely convinced this is a legal proposal. It doesn't really do anything - it allows free trade but doesn't enforce it and so there for is ENTIRELY optional. Which makes it illegal under WA rules and regulations, doesn't it?

---------

Proposals/Resolutions have to meet certain criteria to be legal :-

(this is a basic summary)

1) They have to have an active clause (they have to do something. Create a committee, make member nations do something - things like that). Examples would be "Abolishes slavery in The WA" or "Requires member nations to educate children under the age of majority for free" and so on.

2) They have to apply to all member nations. You can not allow all member nations to opt out - resolutions/proposals are not permitted to be optional. Because otherwise what is the point of passing them? And example of an optional clause is "Nations can introduce this, but they don't have to" or "Permits nations to decide whether or not to allow religious freedoms"

(Note - such clauses are allowed as long as AT LEAST one clause is not optional).

3) Do not try to legislate non-Member Nations. While - in a perfect world - WA laws would apply to non-member nations (those Nation States nations that are not in The World Assembly) we don't live in a perfect world, so they don't.

----------

Now I understand that on the face of it it looks like your proposal has an active clause that is not optional - "This proposal proposes that free trade shall not be banned and or prosecuted in any country under the establishment of the WA"

However it doesn't actually enforce free trade in every country, because it doesn't require countries to actually follow it. Even if this proposal passed, Calladan could continue to pursue the policy of fair trade that it does now, and not follow free trade at all. Just because something is legal doesn't mean we have to indulge in it.

So it could be argued that this proposal is entirely optional because it doesn't force nations to do anything.

You might want to consult with various people, and maybe get it withdrawn before it gets you into trouble. There is a chance I am wrong (I am no expert - I am very open about that fact!!) so I would ask around and get more opinions. Although waiting until after the nuclear war ends might be wise since people are a tad distracted at the moment

by **Zarnazia** » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:46 am

"This will not affect any country in any major way"

by **The New European Order** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:37 am

Libertorum wrote:DISCLAIMER-
This is not an act of support of free trade, However it should be allowed to prosper!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal proposes that free trade shall not be banned and or prosecuted in any country under the establishment of the WA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means that free trade will be legal in all countries, Regardless of type of government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will not affect any country in any major way, Therefore it's status as mild.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So please, Vote to libertate free trade!

Ideas, Thoughts..?

You state in this proposal itself that this is illegal, whether you realize it or not... As I see it, there is no operative clause, as well as you aren't really supposed to ask people to vote for your proposal IN the proposal... As well as you don't have to state the strength inside the document.

by **Johnny Boys** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:50 pm

kids must learn stuff fools

by **The New European Order** » Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:46 am

Johnny boys wrote:kids must learn stuff fools

As I can see you must also be a child, like myself, I will thoughtfully correct you on your grammar, as that is what I see fit.

kids must learn stuff

Alright. Though illiterate, it's an independent clause. However, adding fools after that is both degrading, and proving yourself to be a fool yourself. Try adding a comma after your independent clause, then, you're calling the author a fool for not learning. However, that's still degrading, so I do not appreciate the comment.
Using proper bureaucratic lingo, one should say,

Children, like yourself, must understand the proper tools of the trade, when it comes to writing basic legislature, such as the piece shown. You are a fool for not understanding such.

See? Seems a bit more proper, and you don't look like an illiterate child.

However, this is still degrading, so I suggest you keep hurtful comments to yourself, anyway.

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:43 am

The New European Order wrote:
Johnny boys wrote:kids must learn stuff fools

As I can see you must also be a child, like myself, I will thoughtfully correct you on your grammar, as that is what I see fit.

kids must learn stuff

Alright. Though illiterate, it's an independent clause. However, adding fools after that is both degrading, and proving yourself to be a fool yourself.

OOC; or maybe the comma was meant to go after "learn" instead?

by **The New European Order** » Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:58 am

Bears Armed wrote:
The New European Order wrote:As I can see you must also be a child, like myself, I will thoughtfully correct you on your grammar, as that is what I see fit.

kids must learn stuff

Alright. Though illiterate, it's an independent clause. However, adding fools after that is both degrading, and proving yourself to be a fool yourself.

OOC; or maybe the comma was meant to go after "learn" instead?

OOC: Yes, because we must learn, AND stuff fools. But stuff them with what? :lol: