NationStates Jolt Archive

After we discussed the issue again with our colleague Parroting he drafted and submitted a new proposal which we consider as very good and we are asking you about your opinion about.


"International trade enabling
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Parroting
Description: To make political and civil freedoms worth their existence, money has to be available. This act proposes ways to increase global economic activity, and provide business opportunity throughout the world. It would incorporate the following:
1) The abolition of tarifs between countries
2)Representatives from the business community in each country to be allowed to sit in the government
3)The rights of workers to form councils to advise the busineses they work for. These are elected by the workers.
4) Governments must try to encourage private enterprise within their societies.

These proposals will help the free market, increase the economic power of all UN countries, and therefore help to improve living the standards of the average person in each society.

Approvals: 5 (America the American, Free Fire Zones, Southern Arcadalia, Bloodmoon-Hyperion, Kybernetia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 139 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Jun 9 2004"


This thread shall be used for discussions about the proposal.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura

Translation: 'everybody has to be a free-market, corporate-run capitalist.'

Not a chance in hell.

We urge you for your support of this proposal (currently on page 13).
It is especially benefitary to emerging markets in developing countries since it would give them FREE access to the markets of industrial countries. No delopment aid can ever pay the damage which is done to developing countries through tariffs by industrialized nations. The proposal for free trade is going to chance that.
All are going to benefit from it: countries would concentrate on the industries and the parts of their economies which work economical and which are competitive. The proposal is GOOD FOR ALL.
There we ask you, honourable colleagues, for your support.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Currently you find the proposal at page 10.

eestemed colleagues,

you find the proposal currently on page 4.

We ask you for your support and for your comments in this thread.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

1) The abolition of tarifs between countries

Many nations rely on tariffs, either as a source of public funds or to protect their own economies (for better or worse). There's also some legislative problems I see here -- what about quotas? Many people also suggest that, even in a globalized economy, nations might wish to protect their defensive industries to ensure that they will have access to them regardless of the international situation.

2)Representatives from the business community in each country to be allowed to sit in the government

How would these representatives be selected and how much power would they hold?

3)The rights of workers to form councils to advise the busineses they work for. These are elected by the workers.

Prior NSUN resolutions already protect those rights, in particular the "Rights of Labor Unions" resolution.

4) Governments must try to encourage private enterprise within their societies.

There I probably agree; many socialist governments may not.

Quite apart from our objections to the capitalist principles enforced by this proposal, it demands that nations appoint people to positions of governmental power, not due to the express choice of the electorate, but merely because they have achieved (or even just inherited) economic success - something which I think many democracy-loving nations will not tolerate, _Myopia_ being one.

Cabinia finds itself in the unique position of disapproving of a measure that opens up the markets of the world to trade. Articles 2 and 3 of this measure impose government and corporate structure changes on sovereign nations which are unnecessary and counter-productive.

Cabinia has an unprecedented level of participation by business leaders in governments which are not ruled by corporations. We typically appoint panels of a cross-section of industry leaders to investigate national matters pertaining to their fields, and act on the recommendations of those panels. Yet we still maintain a very careful boundary between those private-sector panels and the government, and we feel Article 2 of this measure would compromise that boundary. Cabinian government and its private industry work together in a partnership that would be hindered by a measure such as this one, since it can only work if the government is in position to provide oversight, which is not possible if the government and the corporations are one. The people would suspect (rightly or wrongly) corruption and self-interest on the part of the corporate leaders, and the entire structure would collapse.

As for Article 3, the government of Cabinia would overstep its authority in determining corporate structure, and would not allow an outside agency to tread where our own government will not. Our corporations are free to listen to their employees or not as they choose, and deal with the consequences of that choice.

We also fail to see how either of these articles would improve free trade.

This measure alienates the leftists by forcing open their markets, and alienates the rightists by forcing governmental and corporate structure, ensuring that this will never leave committee and reach a vote. At some point you have to decide to appeal to somebody.

@Myopia,


"Quite apart from our objections to the capitalist principles enforced by this proposal, it demands that nations appoint people to positions of governmental power, not due to the express choice of the electorate, but merely because they have achieved (or even just inherited) economic success"
You are wrong. We are ONLY BANNING countries from imposing laws that people from the business community can´t hold offices in the government.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

@Myopia,


"Quite apart from our objections to the capitalist principles enforced by this proposal, it demands that nations appoint people to positions of governmental power, not due to the express choice of the electorate, but merely because they have achieved (or even just inherited) economic success"
You are wrong. We are ONLY BANNING countries from imposing laws that people from the business community can´t hold offices in the government.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

The Tekanian Republic has made the decision to vote against this resolution should it come onto the table...

While the Republic remains primarily capitalist, we are "Free-Market" in ideology, and find a fatal flaw in the principle of allowing governmental legislatures hold positions outside of the government, as we fill this is a direct impact on their duties to be impartial and deal with the will of the voters.

-H. Schutz, CDR. Tekanian Ambassarore.


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

@Myopia,


"Quite apart from our objections to the capitalist principles enforced by this proposal, it demands that nations appoint people to positions of governmental power, not due to the express choice of the electorate, but merely because they have achieved (or even just inherited) economic success"
You are wrong. We are ONLY BANNING countries from imposing laws that people from the business community can´t hold offices in the government.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

2)Representatives from the business community in each country to be allowed to sit in the government

If what you say is the case then you really need to clarify this part of the proposal - the term representatives implies that they are appointed by the business community to represent their interests in government. It should say "No-one shall be barred from holding a position in government for the reason of being a member of the business community". Though we would still object, because certain positions, for instance in the oversight of public-private partnerships, require an impartial politician (an example to clarify what i mean would be Steven Norris, a candidate for Mayor of London, an office which oversees the private companies contracted to deal with our underground train system, but Norris is an important director/member of the board/something like that of one of those private companies).

As a nation committed to free trade as espoused in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," the government of the Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria (GDoC) believes that the concept of free trade need not necessarily be in opposition to social justice issues. However, we cannot support this proposal since we believe that the U.N. should have a very limited say in economic policy issues as a matter of course.

That said, the GDoC has long been a proponent of the foundation of an international body dedicated to breaking down trade barriers between nations in order to raise the living standards of all human beings.

To the esteemed representative of Kybernetia, I offer this question: Instead of trying to bring nations with no interest in capitalistic free trade to the table through proposals such as this, would it not be a more logical (and easier) proposition to engage like-minded nations in multilateral trade discussions aimed at safeguarding the welfare of our citizenry while breaking down burdensome trade barriers?

My government appreciates your efforts in this area, even if we disagree with this particular proposal. We look forward to hearing your and other nations' opinions on the suggestions put forward in this message.

Profitably Yours,

Chuck Dukowski
Minister for Commerce, Trade, and Labor
The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

Hey, once it starts growing we start selling. Yes on free trade.

*Lydia stands up, takes a deep breath, a sip of water and clears her throat… *

Honourable UN Members

The government of Telidia is unable to support this proposal in its current form and believe we have made our position regarding the abolition of tariffs quite clear in a previous debate, which can be found here.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3223885&highlight=#3223885

“2)Representatives from the business community in each country to be allowed to sit in the government”

Furthermore Article two as detailed above would require a complete constitution overall in Telidia since members of the government are elected to office by our citizens. We do not feel in the interests of democracy any business representative should have any automatic right to a place in government simply because they own a large enough business. Clearly any state adopting this proposal would leave itself wide open to the possibility of corruption.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

1) The abolition of tarifs between countries

Protectionism is necessary, in both developing and developed countries, to encourage local enterprise and give it an advantage against imports. Tariffs are also an important taxation resource.

2)Representatives from the business community in each country to be allowed to sit in the government

We have a thing called "democracy" which doesn't allow just sticking people into government. Also, we believe that too much corporate involvement in the government is never good.

3)The rights of workers to form councils to advise the busineses they work for. These are elected by the workers.

I think union rights have already been covered in a previous resolution, I'll have to dig it up and get back to you on that.

4) Governments must try to encourage private enterprise within their societies.

Possible game mechanics violation, this might outlaw communism. Also, see my comment on Article 1.

These proposals will help the free market, increase the economic power of all UN countries, and therefore help to improve living the standards of the average person in each society.

From our extensive previous discussion, I'm sure you know I found that statement highly amusing, unless it wasn't a joke, in which case, oh my.