NationStates Jolt Archive

I encourage everyone to view the ban of all non-tariff barriers UN proposal. It greatly increases free trade. :idea: Non-tariff barriers are basically those barriers of commerce that indirectly help domestic products while giving a big disadvantage to any potential foreign products. Competition, including a decrease in price and increase in quality, will occur.

We should raise barriers. My nation is larger than most nations. I could crush the economies of most nations. Once that happens, I can buy all the industries in those nations. Then I can charge you more.

We should raise barriers. My nation is larger than most nations. I could crush the economies of most nations. Once that happens, I can buy all the industries in those nations. Then I can charge you more.

Mr. Wiffle bat says different.... :twisted:

Oppressed Possums has about the point of the century.

This resolution will definintly by signifant. This resolution would about crush nations from the standard way of protecting there economies. Stronger economies will complete take over weaker economies.

Luckily there is an advantage to poor countries. Non-tariff will give them much more the ability to compete by having there workers work for almost nothing. And for the rest to remain competative they will have to reduce for example enviroment and social wealth fare to increase there economy, which some nations might not be particular happy about.

The other thing that will happen as Oppressed Possums says is a common effect of an increased competition. The most productive company or economy will put less productive companies and economies out of operation. In the end this will create more oligopolies and monopolies which will raise prices again.

Then afcourse there is the fact that this resolution will severly intervene with the right of a nation to govern itself and make its own laws. Some people could be very unhappy about that. (well described by giving a severe effect on a nation).

And at last it disrupts with an other effect that effects nations. Every euro/dollar or whatever spend in your economy, you will get back because the money keeps circulating in your own country. An euro/dollar spend in a nation that trades a lot with you you will get back as well because when it gets richer it will buy more for you. Increasing free trade will throw your euro in the big world where it might get lost. It will increase globalisation and unity the world economy. But the fact that it might severly crush some nations might also lead to a strong increase of factions in a country that turn against this globalisation.

People who are owned by other nations, or who become dependant on other nations might revolt against this leading to protest or even terrorism in the end. Which for some nations is a reason to put up a question face and don't understand why they are hated because they are not doing much more wrong than economic. Which again might led them to decide to retaliate on the best way they can. Usually involving a lot of guns and suporior weapons that protest groups do not posses.

Free Trade is a double edged sword. It can do great good for a world that is ready for it and increase living standards. But if the world is not ready for it, it will become messy. Sometimes it is best to let people muddle it out themselves and get there own nations in order first, before joining the major league and face the big, sometimes bad, and dangerious world. This resolution takes away the ability of minor league players to protect themselves and forces them all in to join the major league immidiately, probably resulting in there economies getting crushed or overtaken quite fast.

I skipped the if "economy as a form of war" part. Looking it from that way, this resolution would give a free hand in societies engaging other societies as much as they like and please. However I mostly described the effects of that already above using different wordings.

Oppressed Possums has about the point of the century.

This resolution will definintly by signifant.

YARRRR! YE TALK TOO MUCH, LAND LUBBER!!!

I have a better idea--why not let people buy what they want from whoever they want without punishing them just because the producer might not be in a different country?

We should raise barriers. My nation is larger than most nations. I could crush the economies of most nations. Once that happens, I can buy all the industries in those nations. Then I can charge you more.

We have a better economy than you.

I have a better idea--why not let people buy what they want from whoever they want without punishing them just because the producer might not be in a different country?

Quit spamming and learn how to debate, it's gone past annoying, you aren't accomplishing anything other then fufilling some wierd desire to tell everybody what your opinion is, if you want to take place in reasonable debate like the rest of us, please do so, but do so without claiming your opinions are fact.

Why not? They are.

We should raise barriers. My nation is larger than most nations. I could crush the economies of most nations. Once that happens, I can buy all the industries in those nations. Then I can charge you more.

We have a better economy than you.

No, you have a "stronger" economy than him. Your GNP is bigger. But he has more people, so unless he has an imploded economy or something his is better.

To relate it to real world, it would be like Luxemborg saying to USA that they have a better economy then them, Luxemborg has a better GNP, but thier GDP's aren't even compareable.

Why not? They are.

You can call yourself superman all you want, but that still doesn't mean you can fly.

You are not accomplishing anything by repeating what your opinions are again and again, you are just making people respect your opinions less and less. What you do is not debate, it is like some sort of combonation between whining and writing a personal add.

If none of your opinions can be backed up with facts, then the UN forum rally isn't the place for you, because no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you will not accomplish anything. Except for maybe post whoring, which I never thought as a possibility of what you are doing until now.

What facts? I am arguing moral right vs. wrong, not what is most likely to produce the desired result.

All that matters is whether or not something is morally proper--anything else is secondary.

My experience from a diplomatic war game with 8 players is that morals is the sickest thing in the world. Do you self a favor and run away as fast as you can from using them as the basis of an argument. I suggest focusing more on the result.

In the end, is the desired result of morals not to create a better world?

What point are morals when they make this world hell, can they even be called morals at all?

Anyway complete off subject, so please don't reply :).

My experience from a diplomatic war game with 8 players is that morals is the sickest thing in the world. Do you self a favor and run away as fast as you can from using them as the basis of an argument. I suggest focusing more on the result.
Why? What's right is more important than what works.

In the end, is the desired result of morals not to create a better world?
Morality is an end in itself, just like man is an end in himself.

What facts? I am arguing moral right vs. wrong, not what is most likely to produce the desired result.

All that matters is whether or not something is morally proper--anything else is secondary.

You need facts to back up morals. And morals are NOT facts. Morals are NOT absolute. Until you can formulate a rebutall to the argument which I made and posted several times you are admitting that too.

If you don't want to agree with me, formulate a rebuttal, but no matter what you say, until you formulate a rebuttal, you are basically just agreeing with me.

Pathetic... :roll:

It's unbelievably simple.

Morality is the code by which men interact. Therefore, it must be absolute and the same for all men or it ceases to be of any use.

Now that you understand that, if you wish I will explain what that morality consists of.

It's unbelievably simple.

Morality is the code by which men interact. Therefore, it must be absolute and the same for all men or it ceases to be of any use.

Now that you understand that, if you wish I will explain what that morality consists of.

The morals of western civilization and the morals of nomadic tribes or tribes in africa are completely different, yet they managed to interact within thier own tribes perfectly, just as we interact with eachother. When Columbus first came to the indes he met a native tribe that had no form of money, and (or so it appeared) no ownership of property whatsoever. They were, in fact, confused by the concept of ownership. So how can you claim that your morals are absolute, and apply to everyone, when an entire civilization had never heard of them.

Capitalism isn't even a natural state, it only happens when civilizations are made, and it doesn't even happen in all those cases either.

Capitalism as far as I know mostly a product that forms out of the choice of people to accept the right of property and the unwillingness to add other forms of organisation to deal with some of the questionable problems that arrise from it.

I even picked up somewhere that most cultures do not have right of property. Certainly with more older ones and afcourse not yet western dominated. for example I have heard of one which considered every object in possesion of the entire community. I would say everything in the end belongs to god but anyways. They said whom ever is holding an objected has the right to use it until he puts it down.

The right of property could then also be explained as.....
Once claimed and the claim is accepted by others somewhere far in the passed you have the right to use it until ethernaty.

Afcourse this solves the "left your seat, lose your seat" (translated from dutch) problem. It gave people the ability to go to the toilet without having to worry anymore :P.

Ithunaia I support your view on morals. I can assure you it often leads to far better result than people who only look for the "result" ;).

Just never forget this one,

What point are morals when they make this world hell, can they even be called morals at all?

Can you say slave labor?

Can you say slave labor?
Can you please quote to what you are refering to?

Not really.

Let me put it this way....

In my country the tax rate is 100%. Therefore, the people are unofficially owned by the government. If I want to shift the industry in the country, it wouldn't be too difficult. I could systematically switch my industry from to another and eliminate competition...

Not only are labor costs zero, with 100% taxation, they are in a way paying to work for companies.

True, it is practically a slave system.

But there are and always will be lots of differences in slave system.

For example in the law there might be limitations on what you can let them do.

An example of old times, mediaval europe, is the serf. He worked for you and you owned him, but you could never remove him from his land. That would make changing industrie a lot more diffcult ;).
And there are all kinds of things that sometimes are allowed and sometimes not.

And I like to note, labour is not actually zero. You still have to feed them :P. But you could say that you would not have to pay them much more if they work or not work or work somewhere else :).

Actually before the capitalists starts clapping there hands on how good they are, they have a hidden slave system too.
First of all, no job you die, which comes very close. This is because people don't have any wild land to live off, so they can't leave the system very well.

But there is a better one. When somebody ends up with a dept it can't repay in a lifetimes work, it practically means he works for nothing too, because all the money goes to who ever gave him the loan. There are also limited slave system. Loan someone 10 euro, and the first 10 euro he worked, he worked for nothing....well that would be for whom ever gave him the loan.

The bright side is however that this particalar slave has lots of freedom, like forexample he can choice exactly what work he wants to do. As long as he gets his 10 buck. Hee, he could even work for the one that gave him the loan ;), but he luckily doesn't have to.

It's unbelievably simple.

Morality is the code by which men interact. Therefore, it must be absolute and the same for all men or it ceases to be of any use.

Now that you understand that, if you wish I will explain what that morality consists of.

The morals of western civilization and the morals of nomadic tribes or tribes in africa are completely different, yet they managed to interact within thier own tribes perfectly, just as we interact with eachother.

OK, what about the question of deciding whose rules to follow when those two groups have to interact with each other, for whatever reason? That's an important question, don't you agree? And any sort of answer to that question will ultimately require that there be some set of universal, absolute morals applicable to everyone.

It's unbelievably simple.

Morality is the code by which men interact. Therefore, it must be absolute and the same for all men or it ceases to be of any use.

Now that you understand that, if you wish I will explain what that morality consists of.

The morals of western civilization and the morals of nomadic tribes or tribes in africa are completely different, yet they managed to interact within thier own tribes perfectly, just as we interact with eachother.

OK, what about the question of deciding whose rules to follow when those two groups have to interact with each other, for whatever reason? That's an important question, don't you agree? And any sort of answer to that question will ultimately require that there be some set of universal, absolute morals applicable to everyone.

Not true, if two "communist" (in whatever form you can call those tribes) tribes meet, they do not interact with those absolute morals.

If a capitalist meets a communist, the do no interact with your absolute morals either, and if a capitalist meets a capitalist, they don't even neccasarily use your morals.

So you must just be saying that is what they should do, which makes no sense whatsoever. If you are saying that is what they should do, then it should have some sort of backing behind it, like if it is good for society, or is the easiest to transfer to, or something of that sort. You only base yours on a system of reasoning that not only has no backing but also makes no sense.

To put it simply.;

Your system=/=good for betterment of society
Your system=/=naturally accouring system
Your system=/=easiest to follow
Your system=/=easiest to transfer to

So there is absolutely no reasoning behind your morals, your humans can own things because they exist one doesn't even work, because it works under the assumption that that is how it naturally happens, when naturally it is the strongest person who owns everything.

As I've said before, you have to offer some backing of your argument, you can just constantly say "I'm right because my opinions are facts", if you had some sort of proof that your opinions were facts, you could say that, but, unfortunately for you, you do not have any proof of that.

My, you're ignorant.

I'm not asking HOW they should interact, I'm asking how you decide whose rules to use when they interact.

My, you're ignorant.

I'm not asking HOW they should interact, I'm asking how you decide whose rules to use when they interact.

I'd suggest you read some Kant, personally. I think you'd find it very interesting, and many of his ideas fit in nicely with your own.

I HAVE read Kant.

Kant was an idiot.

Kant was an irrationalist.

I HAVE read Kant.

Kant was an idiot.

Kant was an irrationalist.

...right...

at least he could, more or less, prove his concept of morality, unlike yourself.

I HAVE read Kant.

Kant was an idiot.

Kant was an irrationalist.

I'm inclined to agree. Kant was a moron.

I HAVE read Kant.

Kant was an idiot.

Kant was an irrationalist.

...right...

at least he could, more or less, prove his concept of morality, unlike yourself.

I have, and I'm in the process of doing it again if Tisonica would bother to read what I'm posting rather than see what he wants me to have said.

I HAVE read Kant.

Kant was an idiot.

Kant was an irrationalist.

I'm inclined to agree. Kant was a moron.
Come to think of it, I've never seen you put forward a coherent rational for liberal values either.

I HAVE read Kant.

Kant was an idiot.

Kant was an irrationalist.

...right...

at least he could, more or less, prove his concept of morality, unlike yourself.

I have, and I'm in the process of doing it again if Tisonica would bother to read what I'm posting rather than see what he wants me to have said.

Actually, upon reading what you've wrote, you're putting forward an essentially Kantian defence of universal morality.

What facts? I am arguing moral right vs. wrong, not what is most likely to produce the desired result.

All that matters is whether or not something is morally proper--anything else is secondary.

You need facts to back up morals. And morals are NOT facts. Morals are NOT absolute. Until you can formulate a rebutall to the argument which I made and posted several times you are admitting that too.

If you don't want to agree with me, formulate a rebuttal, but no matter what you say, until you formulate a rebuttal, you are basically just agreeing with me.

Pathetic... :roll:

Actually saying you need facts is based on the "religeon" :P science. Not all people have that "religion", and believe in other things. Stop trying to drive you will on others :P.

It is however kindly if people who are talking about something would be willing to depate it using the axioms of the other. Because if people just repeat there own opinion, based on there own axioms that are quite different from the other, you get absolutely no where.