NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

I've proposed a traditional international Free Trade proposal to lift tariffs on a commodity, but I'm not sure exactly what the "Free Trade" category might also be used for.

I ask this, because there are other proposals and there is some discussion if "Laws put in place to stimulate economies" are free trade or not.

The category description for Free Trade reads:
"A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce."


What I wasn't sure is if you are creating a domestic law, say telecommuting, and were to say, "By allowing telecommuting you are increasing free trade and commerce", is that a UN Free Trade issue or something else?

I think it isn't, but I also could be taking too literal a view on the title "Free Trade".

Any proposal that aims to increase economic freedom is a free trade proposal.

Any proposal that aims to increase economic freedom is a free trade proposal.

OK, thanks ... but that leaves the next question ...

"How are economic freedoms different than civil freedoms?"

Take a few examples: my ability to apply to a job and not be faced with descrimination? Is that an example of my freedom to "economics" or my civil rights?

Or going back to my example about telecommuting ... if the United States (which doesn't exist) were to force corporations to grant telecommuting to all employees who wanted it (perhaps with some regulations), is that a freedom for the company or the individual?

Basically I've been under the impression that "economic" freedoms are the freedoms to make purchases and economic choices, and not the same thing as a civil right. In the telecommuting example, it is not an economic freedom to telecommute, but that is better described as a worker or civil right. The economic freedom would be the ability to buy as many Big Macs as I might like or the freedom of a company to say, "No way do we have to allow you of all people to work at home!"

If the corporations were being forced to do something then it wouldn't be free trade.

I thought you wanted to know if there could be a CATEGORY for free trade, not a proposal

If the corporations were being forced to do something then it wouldn't be free trade.

Thanks, that makes it sound like "economic" freedom applies to businesses and helps me get a better feel for what the purpose behind "Free Trade" proposals are.

Next question: what if the resolution itself used mild language such as saying, "Corporations *should* give workers telecommuting, as this will improve worker morale and the economy."

Is this a Human Rights? Social Justice? Or Free Trade proposal?

First let me guess ... I'd say that it is a human rights ... it is really saying "Humans should be allowed to telecommute, the benefit however is they'll work harder."

If instead it were to say "handicapped people should be allowed to telecommute" I'd almost call that a social justic issue, since it is about tipping the balance back to favour a disavantaged group.

I know the game works a bit differently ... heck maybe a Free Trade would work here too.

Next question: what if the resolution itself used mild language such as saying, "Corporations *should* give workers telecommuting, as this will improve worker morale and the economy."

Is this a Human Rights? Social Justice? Or Free Trade proposal?Well, speaking from my view, I'd say its totally dependant on the intent of the proposal, if your trying to introduce into international law tele-commuting ... or any other similar working practices mind you ... in order to stimulate the economy or increase trade ... then it would be of course free trade.

* I do remember several good looking proposals out and about right now which look set to do this quite well. I'd hate to see, in my experiance here, any sudden legalities infringe on the tradional views and use of the free-trade catagory.

Now, If your setting out and have written your proposal to make it the right of the worker to be able to tele-commute, then maybe that would be human rights I suppose. I don't see why, but this is all of course hypothetical.

If you had set out to say that people who tele-commute should have the same employment rights as any other catagory as the work-force then that would probably be your intent. Once again, all hypothetical.

It is all resolved in relation to the mission state-ment of the proposal.

If instead it were to say "handicapped people should be allowed to telecommute" I'd almost call that a social justic issue, since it is about tipping the balance back to favour a disavantaged group.That of course is entirely dependant initially on the passed law in relation to peoples with dissabilities. So at this time I could not say. Maybe if you were dealing with the handicapped it may be social justice or human rights.

In conclusion as I see it, its dependant, yes, on the proposal at hand. That is the key. Hardly something any real blanket statement could solve I would think ..

I'd have said that anything placing a requirement on a business is not encouraging free trade. But to use the wording 'should', I'm not sure. Is there really any reason for a resolution saying that a company should do something?
Perhaps civil rights or even social justice would be a better category. It's making it easier for the workers to do their jobs, but it's not reducing any barriers to free trade if the barriers were not already there.
Now, if the resolution assumes that a nation is somehow restricting businesses from allowing a practise, then it is free trade as a barrier to free trade is being removed. The wording would have to be very careful.

I'll give a detailed analysis when I have the time (which won't be for a while). However, speaking very generally, "Free Trade" means less governmental control over business and tending towards lassiez-faire (sp?) capitalism. You don't have to actually be proposing anything of that severity, but it should tend in that direction.

"Social Justice" means more governmental control on business and tending towards a completely-controlled economy. You don't have to actually be proposing anything of that severity, but it should tend in that direction.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Now, If your setting out and have written your proposal to make it the right of the worker to be able to tele-commute, then maybe that would be human rights I suppose. I don't see why, but this is all of course hypothetical.

In conclusion as I see it, its dependant, yes, on the proposal at hand. That is the key. Hardly something any real blanket statement could solve I would think ..

First, thanks for all the replies ... this is useful and I'm planning on keeping a link to this thread for as one of many guides should the questions come up.

Komokom, actually this is half hypothetical and half not. The only situation I can see myself including telecommuting in a proposal isn't as a plan to increase economies, but to reduce pollution and automobile use. But I'm just using "telecommuting" as an example, because it is pretty straight forward and pits corporate interests / policies against benefits for people.

Thanks again. :)