NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] Repeal "Minimum Standard of Living Act"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Heidgaudr
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

[Draft] Repeal "Minimum Standard of Living Act"

Postby Heidgaudr » Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:14 pm

Asgeir Trelstad stands up and addresses the Assembly. "Greetings, fellow delegates." He tugs at his collar, visibly nervous. "It's a lot different being the one to propose a new bill. I'm no longer the one doing the heckling, but rather the one getting heckled." He laughs sheepishly while wiping his brow.

"Uh, the other day a member of my staff was reviewing laws currently in effect and they came across this one. They brought it to my attention and my staff quickly drafted a repeal for it - it's called "Minimum Standard of Living Act" - that's probably important to say ... though you'd probably figure that out once you read it. Umm, please enjoy and thank you for your consideration."

Repeal "Minimum Standards of Living Act​​"
Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #344 || Proposed by: Heidgaudr

The World Assembly,

Believing that the health and welfare of member nations' citizens is of great importance;

Extolling the target resolution for attempting to assist people living in squalor;

Worried, however, that several flaws render the target resolution ineffectual at accomplishing its goal of improving the lives of member nations’ citizens;

Finds as follows:

  1. Several terms are used throughout without definition and without obvious interpretation - such as "legitimate reason" in Section 4(c) and "partial minimum standard of living" in Section 5(c) - which both defangs the World Assembly's ability to enforce the mandates of target resolution and empowers bad actors to continue neglecting their citizens.

  2. Section 3 states “that member states are permitted to facilitate the provision of a minimum standard of living through public or private sector initiatives” which grants members the right to promote anti-competitive state-sponsored monopolies for any services that would be included in facilitating the minimum standard of living for citizens.

  3. Section 4 enshrines institutional discrimination by creating exemptions for several highly stigmatized groups of people, such as undocumented immigrants, criminals who have not made “a good faith attempt to make restitution”, and the unemployed who have not made “a good faith attempt to support themselves without government assistance … without a legitimate reason”, without providing any justification for why these groups should be excluded.

  4. Section 5(a) allows member states to guarantee “only a partial minimum standard of living” in certain circumstances which can be the result of government mismanagement, such as economic crises or inadequate preparation for predictable national disasters, thus absolving member nations of responsibility for any actions they committed that may have caused the inability to provide a full minimum standard of living.
Convinced that all people should be guaranteed a minimum standard of living regardless of circumstances so long as doing so is economically practicable;

Dismayed that the target resolution fails at satisfying the goal it set out to accomplish;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #344 "Minimum Standard of Living Act".


The World Assembly,

Believing that the health and welfare of member nations' citizens is of great importance;

Extolling the target resolution for attempting to assist people living in squalor;

Worried that poor legislation on the subject can prevent the World Assembly from better assisting those living in extreme poverty;

Concerned that several flaws render the target resolution ineffectual at accomplishing its goal of improving the lives of member nations’ citizens;

Finds as follows:

  1. Section 3 states “that member states are permitted to facilitate the provision of a minimum standard of living through public or private sector initiatives” which would allow anti-competitive state-sponsored monopolies for any services that would be included in facilitating the minimum standard of living for citizens.

  2. Section 4 permits institutional discrimination by creating exemptions for several highly stigmatized groups of people, such as undocumented immigrants, criminals who have not made “a good faith attempt to make restitution”, and the unemployed who have not made “a good faith attempt to support themselves without government assistance … without a legitimate reason”, without providing any justification for why these groups should be excluded.

  3. Section 5(a) allows member states to guarantee “only a partial minimum standard of living” in certain circumstances which can be the result of government mismanagement, such as economic crises or inadequate preparation for predictable national disasters, thus absolving member nations of responsibility for any potential wrongdoing.

  4. Section 5 permits in certain circumstances “each member state to guarantee only a partial minimum standard of living”, which is an intentionally vague mandate designed to let member states interpret however they please within the broad confines of “the extent that that member state deems practicable and appropriate while remaining consistent with the object and purpose of this resolution”. While the concept of permitting only partial compliance in extreme circumstances is commendable, the target resolution’s implementation is too permissive whereby it allows member nations to fail their citizens in times of crisis and duress because the nation believes helping would not be practicable or appropriate.
Convinced that all people should be guaranteed a minimum standard of living regardless of circumstances so long as nations are able without creating an undue financial burden;

Dismayed that the target resolution fails at satisfying these goals;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #344 "Minimum Standard of Living Act".

The World Assembly,

Believing that the health and welfare of member nations' citizens is of great importance;

Extolling the target resolution for attempting to assist people living in squalor;

Worried that poor legislation on the subject can prevent the World Assembly from better assisting those living in extreme poverty;

Concerned that several flaws render the target resolution ineffectual at accomplishing its goal of improving the lives of member nations’ citizens;

Finds as follows:

  1. That Section 3 states “that member states are permitted to facilitate the provision of a minimum standard of living through public or private sector initiatives” which would allow anti-competitive state-sponsored monopolies for any services that would be included in facilitating the minimum standard of living for citizens.

  2. That Section 4 permits institutional discrimination by creating exemptions for several highly stigmatized groups of people, such as undocumented immigrants, criminals, and the unemployed, without giving adequate reasons or justifications for the exemptions.

  3. That Section 5 permits member states to guarantee “only a partial minimum standard of living” in certain circumstances which can be the result of government mismanagement, such as national emergencies or economic crises, thus absolving member nations of any responsibility for potential wrongdoing.
Saddened that many of the target resolutions provisions do not apply or only partially apply to the people most desperately in need of them;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #344 "Minimum Standard of Living Act".

The World Assembly,

Believing that the health and welfare of member states' citizens is of great importance;

Extolling GAR#344 Minimum Standard of Living Act for attempting to assist people living in squalor;

Understanding the economic burden placed upon member states when complying with the target resolution;

Lamenting the fact that the member states most in need of the target resolution are also the most impacted by the economic costs and are thus unable to fully guarantee the required minimum standard of living;

Recognizing that the target resolution attempts to solve this issue by permitting member states to "guarantee only a partial minimum standard of living, to the extent that the member state deems practicable";

Realizing that impoverished nations may simply deem it impossible to comply with the resolution's mandates, thus failing to solve the underlying issue of poverty;

Saddened that the target resolution is rendered toothless and ineffectual due to these facts;

Asserting that it is the duty of the World Assembly to remove laws that no longer serve a practical purpose;

Hereby repeals "Minimum Standard of Living Act".
Last edited by Heidgaudr on Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:34 pm, edited 8 times in total.
"Quotes" indicate IC. OOC otherwise.
Factbooks: WA Staff | Religion | WA Agenda | More coming soon (if I can be bothered)

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Senator
 
Posts: 3548
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:27 pm

Support without replacement.

-Benji


she/her
Represented by Benji Schubert Hepperle in the WA


[the] ice age [is] coming

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1555
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:30 pm

OOC: I find the primary argument disingenuous, given that the full clause states "Permits each member state to guarantee only a partial minimum standard of living, to the extent that that member state deems practicable and appropriate while remaining consistent with the object and purpose of this resolution" - a member-state saying that they are not able to provide any partial minimum standard of living while they can is not compliant, even though "that member state deems" it to be impossible.

Unless you're saying that the resolution only ought to affect those who have no ability to provide any minimum standard of living, which is a vast minority of member-states, in which case the argument that it "fail[s] to solve the underlying issue of poverty" is disingenuous in all but a select few cases.

IC: "Support."
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Heidgaudr
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Heidgaudr » Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:52 pm

Honeydewistania wrote:Support without replacement.

-Benji

"We thank you for your support. We don't intend to replace it, though I'll draw your attention to a draft revived by the Delegation from Tinhampton that is a response to this proposal."

Morover wrote:OOC: I find the primary argument disingenuous, given that the full clause states "Permits each member state to guarantee only a partial minimum standard of living, to the extent that that member state deems practicable and appropriate while remaining consistent with the object and purpose of this resolution" - a member-state saying that they are not able to provide any partial minimum standard of living while they can is not compliant, even though "that member state deems" it to be impossible.

Unless you're saying that the resolution only ought to affect those who have no ability to provide any minimum standard of living, which is a vast minority of member-states, in which case the argument that it "fail[s] to solve the underlying issue of poverty" is disingenuous in all but a select few cases.

I may have gotten a bit carried away when writing that last evening. You're correct that very few states actually qualify for doing absolutely nothing. However, I think the minimal standard of living isn't much different from no standard of living, so my argument hasn't materially changed. The nations who need MSoLA can't afford it, and those that can afford it no longer need it.

I'll fix the wording to be more accurate when I write a second draft, though I'll leave this first draft up for a little while to collect more comments.
"Quotes" indicate IC. OOC otherwise.
Factbooks: WA Staff | Religion | WA Agenda | More coming soon (if I can be bothered)

User avatar
The Orwell Society
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1806
Founded: Apr 16, 2022
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The Orwell Society » Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:07 pm

Support with Tin's draft as a replacement. Good work.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
•  Ideology is either radical centrist or authoritarian social democrat. Which one, I may never know.
•  Ffteen year old guy living in the US.
•  Nerdy nerd
•  Proud Minister of State for Home Affairs and Minister of State for WA Affairs of Sildoria
•  Aspiring WA author
•  Semi-experienced gameplayer and cards trader (top 150!)

this
this

User avatar
Excidium Planetis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7741
Founded: May 01, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Excidium Planetis » Sat Aug 13, 2022 7:46 pm

"I, uh, am opposed... Not strongly, your repeal makes a good argument, it's just uhm..." Adelia argues, "There probably do exist, I believe, a great many, um, number of nations which are economically capable, but, uh, shall we say, unwilling, to guarantee a minimum standard of living for their, their citizens. It is my opinion, therefore that, uh, the resolution does accomplish some good and that, that more harm would be dealt by, by repealing it. If you understand what I mean. But uh, I would b-be open to hearing any other arguments you want to put forward, uh, to convince me otherwise."
Current Ambassador: Adelia Meritt
Ex-Ambassador: Cornelia Schultz, author of GA#355 and GA#368.
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
Tier 8, 7.5 nation, according to my index.Made of nomadic fleets.


News: None. Good, right?

User avatar
Heidgaudr
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Heidgaudr » Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:39 pm

Excidium Planetis wrote:"I, uh, am opposed... Not strongly, your repeal makes a good argument, it's just uhm..." Adelia argues, "There probably do exist, I believe, a great many, um, number of nations which are economically capable, but, uh, shall we say, unwilling, to guarantee a minimum standard of living for their, their citizens. It is my opinion, therefore that, uh, the resolution does accomplish some good and that, that more harm would be dealt by, by repealing it. If you understand what I mean. But uh, I would b-be open to hearing any other arguments you want to put forward, uh, to convince me otherwise."

"That's certainly a fair criticism, but it's one that I believe can be levied against many a proposal. Yes, some nations will, if left to their own devices, refuse to provide for the general welfare of their citizens; however many developing nations will benefit from the repeal of MSoLA. The World Assembly has some great programs, such as the WA Development Foundation, which will help economically uplift developing nations. But these programs are only available if a nation is a member of the World Assembly.

"Unfortunately, nations may decide that the cost of joining the WA - by way of costly mandates such as this one - outweighs the benefits that come with membership. I want to remove these barriers so that more nations, and by extension, more people, can be uplifted through the power and weight of the World Assembly. I believe the repeal of MSoLA will ultimately lead to more good than harm."
"Quotes" indicate IC. OOC otherwise.
Factbooks: WA Staff | Religion | WA Agenda | More coming soon (if I can be bothered)

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11033
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:00 am

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: If the Development Foundation is a great programme, then I'm a dog. This kind of WA-sanctioned austerity should never have had any place here. Anyway, we are supportive of the repeal, and intend to draft replacements on subject matters other than housing and shelter in due course.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Anne of Cleves in TNP
Envoy
 
Posts: 317
Founded: Aug 12, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Anne of Cleves in TNP » Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:24 am

“Support in principle.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire
IC Name: The Clevesian Empire
Capital: New Cleves
Leader: Empress Anne of Cleves III
Failed WA Proposals: “Repeal: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol”
IC WA Ambassador: Ms. Charlotte Schafer
“Give me a proposal, I’ll give you some criticism.”
[RIP Technoblade]

User avatar
Heidgaudr
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Heidgaudr » Sun Aug 28, 2022 5:27 pm

"We would like to thank those who commented on our first draft. My office has just finished a complete overhaul of the proposal and have released it as a second draft. We hope that your concerns and comments have been addressed in this new draft."
"Quotes" indicate IC. OOC otherwise.
Factbooks: WA Staff | Religion | WA Agenda | More coming soon (if I can be bothered)

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11714
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Aug 28, 2022 8:12 pm

Heidgaudr wrote:
  1. That Section 3 states “that member states are permitted to facilitate the provision of a minimum standard of living through public or private sector initiatives” which would allow anti-competitive state-sponsored monopolies for any services that would be included in facilitating the minimum standard of living for citizens.

  2. That Section 4 permits institutional discrimination by creating exemptions for several highly stigmatized groups of people, such as undocumented immigrants, criminals, and the unemployed, without giving adequate reasons or justifications for the exemptions.

  3. That Section 5 permits member states to guarantee “only a partial minimum standard of living” in certain circumstances which can be the result of government mismanagement, such as national emergencies or economic crises, thus absolving member nations of any responsibility for potential wrongdoing.

C Marcius Blythe. As to the first point, you would have to warrant why monopolies that are not in of themselves harmful are actually bad. If a monopoly existed but did not charge supranormal prices without planning to do so in the future – which is one of the assumptions of the target (doing so would necessarily cut against the minimum standard of living) – why should we care?

We also think the claim that unemployed people and criminals are denied a minimum standard of living to be false; it does not do anyone any good to lie about resolutions. We also believe that it would be acceptable to pass an extension to the existing proposal if you so desired, given that clause 6 would immunise any future resolution.

As to your third point, discussing section 5, it is first disingenuous to say that mismanagement is the cause of national emergencies or economic crises. A cyclonic storm flattening a major metropolitan area is not government mismanagement. Unless you truly believe that governments can control the weather and tectonic plates, your standard is ridiculous. The argument also largely ignores the requirement that such claims of hardship must remain "consistent with the object and purpose of [the target]".
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sun Aug 28, 2022 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Minister
 
Posts: 2342
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Daarwyrth » Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:15 pm

Zylkoven: "Our delegation would be willing to support this proposal, if the points as raised by the representatives from Imperium Anglorum are addressed."
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Current year: 2022 CE
  • Daarwyrth
  • Great Robertia
  • Uylensted
  • Kentauria
  • 27 years old male
  • Dutch with Polish roots
  • English literature major
  • Ex-religious gay leftist

User avatar
Trivalve
Envoy
 
Posts: 228
Founded: Jun 17, 2021
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Trivalve » Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:02 pm

President Indra Cormac: "After much deliberation, we have decided to to support this resolution"
Last edited by Trivalve on Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Current Local Councillor of the South Pacific, Creator and Head of the Regional Development program, former Deputy Councillor of the South Pacific, former Leader of the South Pacific Union.


User avatar
Heidgaudr
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Heidgaudr » Sat Sep 10, 2022 12:24 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Heidgaudr wrote:
  1. That Section 3 states “that member states are permitted to facilitate the provision of a minimum standard of living through public or private sector initiatives” which would allow anti-competitive state-sponsored monopolies for any services that would be included in facilitating the minimum standard of living for citizens.

  2. That Section 4 permits institutional discrimination by creating exemptions for several highly stigmatized groups of people, such as undocumented immigrants, criminals, and the unemployed, without giving adequate reasons or justifications for the exemptions.

  3. That Section 5 permits member states to guarantee “only a partial minimum standard of living” in certain circumstances which can be the result of government mismanagement, such as national emergencies or economic crises, thus absolving member nations of any responsibility for potential wrongdoing.

C Marcius Blythe. As to the first point, you would have to warrant why monopolies that are not in of themselves harmful are actually bad. If a monopoly existed but did not charge supranormal prices without planning to do so in the future – which is one of the assumptions of the target (doing so would necessarily cut against the minimum standard of living) – why should we care?

We also think the claim that unemployed people and criminals are denied a minimum standard of living to be false; it does not do anyone any good to lie about resolutions. We also believe that it would be acceptable to pass an extension to the existing proposal if you so desired, given that clause 6 would immunise any future resolution.

As to your third point, discussing section 5, it is first disingenuous to say that mismanagement is the cause of national emergencies or economic crises. A cyclonic storm flattening a major metropolitan area is not government mismanagement. Unless you truly believe that governments can control the weather and tectonic plates, your standard is ridiculous. The argument also largely ignores the requirement that such claims of hardship must remain "consistent with the object and purpose of [the target]".

"As for the first point, our delegation believes that any monopoly is inherently immoral and measures should be instituted to dismantle it. While we value your input, I believe that we'll have to respectfully disagree on this point, but we'll look into crafting a more convincing argument in the text with our next revision.

"As for the second point, I believe it is our office's fault for a potential miscommunication. We should have used more precise language to indicate that we didn't mean all criminals and all unemployed, but rather a much smaller subset of the two groups: criminals who have not made good faith efforts for restitution, and those who are unemployed and are not seeking employment, training, or education. We believe that a minimum standard of living should apply to all regardless of their actions. We'll rectify our mistake with a draft revision in the coming days.

"And finally when it comes to the third point, I believe we have committed a similar error as we did previously. My staff will be reprimanded, I assure you. We don't believe that nations are in control of the weather or the shifting of tectonic plates. Rather, we meant to say it would absolve governments of some of the responsibility for causing economic crises or for not adequately preparing for foreseeable natural disasters - such as instituting policies to lessen the damage of earthquakes for areas near fault lines."
"Quotes" indicate IC. OOC otherwise.
Factbooks: WA Staff | Religion | WA Agenda | More coming soon (if I can be bothered)

User avatar
Heidgaudr
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Heidgaudr » Mon Sep 12, 2022 1:17 pm

"We have amended our draft to address some of the concerns raised by the delegation from Imperium Anglorum. We've also added an additional point to the list regarding the definition of 'partial minimum standard of living.'"
"Quotes" indicate IC. OOC otherwise.
Factbooks: WA Staff | Religion | WA Agenda | More coming soon (if I can be bothered)

User avatar
The Ice States
Envoy
 
Posts: 206
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Corporate Police State

Postby The Ice States » Mon Sep 12, 2022 1:56 pm

"The mission believes that these are strong arguments. Support."
Last edited by The Ice States on Mon Sep 12, 2022 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For Klyprer, Conquest, And Riches!


Population: 60,264,000. Ice Calendar year: 1415.

User avatar
Heidgaudr
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Heidgaudr » Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:23 pm

I completely rewrote 4. and moved it to the top of the list. I also did some minor rephrasing throughout. Feedback would be much appreciated.
"Quotes" indicate IC. OOC otherwise.
Factbooks: WA Staff | Religion | WA Agenda | More coming soon (if I can be bothered)

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11714
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:53 pm

C Marcius Blythe. As to the monopolies question, we think the matter to be relatively settled. There are cases where monopolies are more efficient than a purposeful introduction of competition, especially in developed industries with little need for innovation. Moreover, there are cases where monopolies are natural outcomes of highly capital intensive sectors: water, electrical distribution, and other utilities are the classic examples.

OOC. See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/na ... nopoly.asp. Also https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.12.4.133.

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Heidgaudr
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Heidgaudr » Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:55 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:C Marcius Blythe. As to the monopolies question, we think the matter to be relatively settled. There are cases where monopolies are more efficient than a purposeful introduction of competition, especially in developed industries with little need for innovation. Moreover, there are cases where monopolies are natural outcomes of highly capital intensive sectors: water, electrical distribution, and other utilities are the classic examples.

OOC. See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/na ... nopoly.asp. Also https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.12.4.133.

"Thank you for your input. This is a particular subject I was advised to consult with my superiors - the National Council of Heidgaudr - should there be a need to change it. I propose a short recess while I contact them and receive instruction on how to proceed."

Ambassador Trelstad leaves the chamber and an intern puts a jazz album on in the background. Approximately an hour later, the Heidgaudrian ambassador returns to the chambers. He rubs his eyes tiredly, his face droopier than it had been just an hour before.

"So - *sigh* - I need to be careful in what I say on this subject as my job could very well be on the line if I misspeak - and while I miss my family, there are still objectives I wish to accomplish here in the World Assembly.

"The idealogues - excuse me, the members of the National Council do not want to enshrine in an unrepealable law the absolute legitimacy of monopolies regardless of whether it may or - ugh - may not be true. They are concerned that the provision in MSoLA permits corrupt governments to create monopolies in these sectors for businesses they own or otherwise have business interests in, thus funneling government funds to their own pockets. I've had my staff draft an amended version of that section, for your consideration:"

Section 3 states “that member states are permitted to facilitate the provision of a minimum standard of living through public or private sector initiatives” which allows leaders the right to grant businesses they have a business interest in anti-competitive state-sponsored monopolies for any services that would be included in facilitating the minimum standard of living for citizens, even if the monopoly would be otherwise inefficient.


"I admit, it is a bit sloppy, but my staff was rushed in its drafting. I hope this amendment addresses your concerns. If it does, I'll instruct my staff to consider ways to rewrite it to be less ... clunky."
Last edited by Heidgaudr on Sat Sep 17, 2022 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Quotes" indicate IC. OOC otherwise.
Factbooks: WA Staff | Religion | WA Agenda | More coming soon (if I can be bothered)

User avatar
Heidgaudr
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Heidgaudr » Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:10 pm

Bump
"Quotes" indicate IC. OOC otherwise.
Factbooks: WA Staff | Religion | WA Agenda | More coming soon (if I can be bothered)


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads