NationStates Jolt Archive

My country, the Free Republic of Republic Free has a proposal pending that is stated below. I hope that you will please consider approving it. I believe it to be a decent proposal, so don't count it out because you happen to be a super right wing politician. FRoRF thanks you.

The Free Republic of Republic Free Hereby dercrees that:

I. At least 80% ot all the world's forests shall be protected from the woodchipping industry and of that, 50% of it shall be turned into national parks for the enjoyment of the public at no cost.

II. In the 20% of forests available to woodchip, there will be orginization: It shall only be harvested evey two years, and evey woodchipping agency shall have an equil share of the land.

III. Every woodchipping agency shall be required to pay a bi-yearly fee of 10% of their bi-yearly income. That money shall go directly to the aid of the national parks.

IV. Any woodchipping agency that is found guilty of breaking any of these laws will be fined $500,000 and be put out of service for 4 years.

No. There is no valid reason to prevent owners of private property from doing what they wish with that property.

1. If you bar 80% if forest from foresters you WILL run out of things like paper and lumber. Would you like to explain to your people why they can not build new houses?

2. If it is my citizen's property, they can cut what they want.

This proposal is not viable at present, as our NationStates world depends heavily on wood and wood-derived products. Forests must be protected, but such drastic measures would have an apocalyptic effect on the world economy. We suggest working towards this extensive protection as an ultimate goal by slowly taking smaller steps, such as developing commercially viable alternative materials from which things such as paper or furniture could be made.

Office of the Governor

A proposal setting up a required minimum of national parks in U.N. member nations would work better, and nations could decide for themselves wether they want to produce lumber and paper. This way forests would be saved and nations would still be able to produce lumber and paper.

No. There is no valid reason to prevent owners of private property from doing what they wish with that property.
there's dozen's of valid reasons... and that's before considering whether private ownership of land is defendable

*walks over to a pine tree, pulls out a pair of handcuffs, cuffs self to tree* SAVE THE FORESTS!!!!! SCREW PRIVATE OWNERS! THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO MURDER!!!!

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

quite

NEWS FROM THE GLOBAL MARKET:

In response to recent United Nations absurdity, leaders of the Book Publishing Industry, the third largest in the Global Market, got together and ceremonially burned down several acres of trees near the border with Wolomy. The smoke was then directed by wind into a "f*ck you" pattern which flew over much of the world for the next day.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Edit

I don't know about you but I NEED toilet paper.

NEWS FROM THE GLOBAL MARKET:

In response to recent United Nations absurdity, leaders of the Book Publishing Industry, the third largest in the Global Market, got together and ceremonially burned down several acres of trees near the border with Wolomy. The smoke was then directed by wind into a "f*ck you" pattern which flew over much of the world for the next day.

So much for the efficiency of the free market. Though I notice you are a left-leaning college state again, have you converted to socialism properly this time?

NEWS FROM THE GLOBAL MARKET:

In response to recent United Nations absurdity, leaders of the Book Publishing Industry, the third largest in the Global Market, got together and ceremonially burned down several acres of trees near the border with Wolomy. The smoke was then directed by wind into a "f*ck you" pattern which flew over much of the world for the next day.

So much for the efficiency of the free market. Though I notice you are a left-leaning college state again, have you converted to socialism properly this time?

No. I THINK that letting immigrants into your country decreases economic freedom somehow. That's the only logical answer.

SOy basically ya'll are just saying i'm a left-wing tree hugger and you won't support me?

I won't support you because your idea is fundamentally immoral.

I won't support you because your idea is fundamentally immoral.

Because God gave us all the trees so we can do what we like with them? or some other wonderful justification?

Republic Free, is left wing tree huggers need to stick together! Heh. I do believe, however, that teh proposal is a bit drastic, perhaps people would find it more viable if you hightened the percentage that could be used as lumber etc.

I won't support you because your idea is fundamentally immoral.

Because God gave us all the trees so we can do what we like with them? or some other wonderful justification?

Well, if you would check above, he seems to have very strong opinions of about rights of property. Also, I would like to point out the stupidity of putting trees as your #1 concern. The job of a government is to promote the intrest of your PEOPLE. Now, I'm not saying "RAZE ALL THE TREES, to Heck with Nature!" I actually would support this if it were toned down to something like a percentage of national forests, but not 80%. And the other 20% being only used every other year? That much paper would be eaten simply by college text books!

BTW, did you consider how much cost to the national governments this will cost? You have to employ a heck of a lot of rangers, organize a system of equal distribution of logging areas, etc. Would probably kill any small or poor nations (like mine).

I won't support you because your idea is fundamentally immoral.

Because God gave us all the trees so we can do what we like with them? or some other wonderful justification?

Well, if you would check above, he seems to have very strong opinions of about rights of property. Also, I would like to point out the stupidity of putting trees as your #1 concern. The job of a government is to promote the intrest of your PEOPLE. Now, I'm not saying "RAZE ALL THE TREES, to Heck with Nature!" I actually would support this if it were toned down to something like a percentage of national forests, but not 80%. And the other 20% being only used every other year? That much paper would be eaten simply by college text books!

BTW, did you consider how much cost to the national governments this will cost? You have to employ a heck of a lot of rangers, organize a system of equal distribution of logging areas, etc. Would probably kill any small or poor nations (like mine).

I suppose it could cost those backward nations that insist on capitalist economics quite a lot, I think the best solution for nations such as yours is to work towards communism.

There is another problem with this resolution, it is far too complex, a solution to this would be to simply ban commercial logging everywhere and in all forms.

As for Ithuania, I know he is obsessed with property rights, he seems to think anything that violates the supposed right of man to own whatever he likes and do whatever he likes with it no matter the effect on anyone else is totally immoral. I was asking him to justify this view.

I have, several times. I grow tired of repeating myself.

I won't support you because your idea is fundamentally immoral.

You know Ithuania, you toss the idea of immorality around pretty freely without ever deigning to back up exactly why the beliefs of those who disagree with you are immoral. So here's a little challenge for you--define morality as you perceive it in detail, and then explain, using examples of both moral and immoral ideas, why anyone who disagrees with you is immoral.
I suggest this because I don't think you're up to the task--I think you're someone who just thinks he/she is always right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot beneath your contempt--so here's your chance to prove me wrong. Are you going to step up, or are you going to take the full force of the ignore cannon right in the face?

Actually, I have several times. I grow tired of repeating myself.

Actually, I have several times. I grow tired of repeating myself.

Really. Funny that, because, as has been pointed out, you seem to throw morality into every argument. Why don't you grow tired of that? And then there's the incessant insulting of nations that do not agree with your property-oriented philosophy.

I think that I speak for a lot of nations when I saw that we are growing tired of your shenanigans. I've asked you nicely in another thread to cease and desist, but it appears that you've blatantly ignored that request.

Not everyone is going to agree with you. This does not make their point of view wrong or immoral.

Not everyone is going to agree with me. This does not make their point of view wrong or immoral.

People have different ideologies about how to run a country. They are throwing out their ideas in this forum as a sounding board, trying to exert their influence on other nations, as well as gather opinions in order to run their own nation best. Debate and discussion are encouraged. Insults and flaming are not.

Actually, I have several times. I grow tired of repeating myself.

Really. Funny that, because, as has been pointed out, you seem to throw morality into every argument. Why don't you grow tired of that?
Because it doesn't require the same twenty-plus paragraphs that are required to give a basic explanation of why morality is absolute and objective.
And then there's the incessant insulting of nations that do not agree with your property-oriented philosophy.
That's because they're subhuman amoral cretins and deserve to be treated as such.

Not everyone is going to agree with you. This does not make their point of view wrong or immoral.
Umm...yes, it does. I am right, and my views are morally correct, as I have explained several other times. There can only be one right; therefore, the others must be wrong and immoral.

People have different ideologies about how to run a country.
You're right--it just so happens that mine is the only correct one.
They are throwing out their ideas in this forum as a sounding board, trying to exert their influence on other nations, as well as gather opinions in order to run their own nation best. Debate and discussion are encouraged. Insults and flaming are not.
If that is the only way to tell the truth, then so be it.

I suppose it could cost those backward nations that insist on capitalist economics quite a lot, I think the best solution for nations such as yours is to work towards communism.

There is another problem with this resolution, it is far too complex, a solution to this would be to simply ban commercial logging everywhere and in all forms.

As for Ithuania, I know he is obsessed with property rights, he seems to think anything that violates the supposed right of man to own whatever he likes and do whatever he likes with it no matter the effect on anyone else is totally immoral. I was asking him to justify this view.

Indeed, we have seen just how successful communism is. It has worked SO well for all those nations. And explain to me how being a communist makes it cheaper? Apparently you fail to grasp that, though not using capital as a form of economy, you are using something, and it would be expensive.

I'd LOVE to see what would happen to a nation that banned logging in all shape and form. You'd get rather annoyed when you had to fall back down to chalk and slate or plastic tablets and styluses. Also, I'm sure your people would love the way you're telling them they cannot build houses or have furniture.

Asking someone to justify their view is rather pointless, it seems. Look at our own debate. :P Some people feel especially strongly about certain issues over others, seems property rights is Ithuania's. As for his fall back on morality, well, I understand his thoughts, though I believe he fails to recognize how this totally undermines any point he has. The point of debate is to persuade, if your only method of persuading is saying, "You're wrong because I say so!" Then you've already lost the debate.

[quote=Ithuania]

[quote]Not everyone is going to agree with you. This does not make their point of view wrong or immoral.
Umm...yes, it does. I am right, and my views are morally correct, as I have explained several other times. There can only be one right; therefore, the others must be wrong and immoral.

People have different ideologies about how to run a country.
You're right--it just so happens that mine is the only correct one.

Those are pretty tall statments. Are you sure morality is absolute?

I suppose it could cost those backward nations that insist on capitalist economics quite a lot, I think the best solution for nations such as yours is to work towards communism.

There is another problem with this resolution, it is far too complex, a solution to this would be to simply ban commercial logging everywhere and in all forms.

As for Ithuania, I know he is obsessed with property rights, he seems to think anything that violates the supposed right of man to own whatever he likes and do whatever he likes with it no matter the effect on anyone else is totally immoral. I was asking him to justify this view.

Indeed, we have seen just how successful communism is. It has worked SO well for all those nations. And explain to me how being a communist makes it cheaper? Apparently you fail to grasp that, though not using capital as a form of economy, you are using something, and it would be expensive.

Communism has never failed because communism has not happened yet, Stalinism is not Communism. Communism makes things cheaper because it is collectivist so no one pays anyone directly, everything is owned collectivly and people work for the common good.

I'd LOVE to see what would happen to a nation that banned logging in all shape and form. You'd get rather annoyed when you had to fall back down to chalk and slate or plastic tablets and styluses. Also, I'm sure your people would love the way you're telling them they cannot build houses or have furniture.

I said commercial logging should be banned in all forms. Commercial logging does not mean all logging.

Asking someone to justify their view is rather pointless, it seems. Look at our own debate. :P Some people feel especially strongly about certain issues over others, seems property rights is Ithuania's. As for his fall back on morality, well, I understand his thoughts, though I believe he fails to recognize how this totally undermines any point he has. The point of debate is to persuade, if your only method of persuading is saying, "You're wrong because I say so!" Then you've already lost the debate.

I don't understand them. I don't think I have ever seen a good moral argument for why individuals should be allowed to destroy the planet at the expense of everyone else yet no one else should be allowed a say in the matter because according to someones law it is not their property.