NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

There is a nation that is trying to abuse the Free Trade category. This nation has created a series of domestic laws that are in fact, socialist ideas (which is fine, there is nothing wrong with that), but are being mislabeled as resolutions to "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce".

I'd like to talk to this assembly about an issue that has been brought up before and discussed in the NationStates General forum:

Alcohol Tariffs.

As many of you know, Miervatia has a strong tradition of beer (we call it bier) brewing, with Miervatian Spice Bier being a major national export (third only to the export of raw Spice Melange and train components). Now naturally my government would like to open up its alcohol market to many of your nations, but some of your nations have placed huge tariffs on imported Miervatian Spice Bier! :(

With that in mind, instead of abusing the UN to create domestic laws, I'd like to see if perhaps we could work together to reduce a barrier to free trade with respect to beer, both macrobrews like ButWiper's generic beer and fine microbrews like Sudwerks Tremens Spice (Sudwerks is one of many popular Miervatian exports).

Since some nation has used the UN Secretariat to fillibuster my nation's "Global Disaster Assistance" proposal (which I feel is very important and needs to come back to the floor), I would like to start work on a Miervatian Bier Purity Accord.

I'm proposing that we recognize that nations have a right to restrict alcohol sales, but that if they want to export alcohol or soda pop or any other luxury drink that they should join the accord and remove those barriers. Naturally each of our governments knows best how to serve its people, so in order to encourage us to lower our barriers to trade, we need to establish some form of purity in our beer.

So with that in mind, who here would like to work with my government on a beer purity accord?

We'd be delighted to join in. Our beer (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/East_Hackney/Heart-of-Darkness-label.jpg) is famed throughout the ACA and we're all in favour of any measure promoting the unfettered exchange of alcohol.

Let me get this straight. What you're proposing is that nations can choose to opt in to this purity code, but if they do opt in then that carries with it some obligation to lower trade barriers? Or have we misunderstood?

I'm down with this. The HotRodia Tequila Vendors Conglomerate would love to get in on this action.

Shameless plug: You can request HotRodia Tequila from your local Black Hole Cafe.

OK, here is the quick run down. If we want a resolution format, here is one take on the accord (named in the spirit of the Wolfish or Genevea Conventions or Rio Declaration or Kyoto ... you get the idea, but the name is easily changed):


Miervatian Bier Accord
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of beer (also known as bier in many nations which have been brewing it for hundreds of years) is illegal or heavily regulated by their governments;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of beer, but place heavy tariffs on imported beer, citing both quality of imported beer and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

UNDERSTANDING that protective tariffs designed to protect consumers’ health, while a hindrance to international free trade, are necessary to insure the purity of beer;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of nations in which the actual consumption of beer is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign beers, provided that these nations also do not engage in exporting their own domestically brewed beers;

2. DEFINES a protection based beer tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a non-domestically brewed (i.e. imported) beer;

3. ACKNOLWEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax all beers;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protection based beer tariff and to freely engage in marketing, exporting, and importing beer;

5. AUTHORIZES any nation that has not enacted protection based beer tariffs to only levee similar tariffs against nations that fail to open their domestic markets to foreign exported beer; and

6. MANDATES that exported beer must list all of its ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess the purity of the imported beer.


As I understand it, "Free Trade" implies that nations have to basically lower barriers to international trade. If international trade isn't involved, it is a domestic issue.

Another approach would be for me to re-write the above accord in the style of a "Accord" or "Convention". I'm sure I can hack something out that is still easier to follow than the flood of pro-business (Social Justice) proposals we are seeing right now.

In any event, if the UN wants a Free Trade agreement, let's make it a true Free Trade agreement. Let's lower the barriers that protectionist nations establish. Let's show the world what we can do! :)

We'd be delighted to join in. Our beer (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/East_Hackney/Heart-of-Darkness-label.jpg) is famed throughout the ACA and we're all in favour of any measure promoting the unfettered exchange of alcohol.

Let me get this straight. What you're proposing is that nations can choose to opt in to this purity code, but if they do opt in then that carries with it some obligation to lower trade barriers? Or have we misunderstood?

That is the basic idea.

I must add that ever since travelers from Mikitivity brough back some of their first Hackneyian stouts back, local Miervatian brewers have been fighting hard to keep your stouts off our streets! It is a good beer. So naturally it was of no surprise when Barada (a city in Mikitivity) established its own Hackneyian Styled Brewery! Imagine that!

Fortunately there are plenty of other nations that appreciate a light crisp Spooky Hefeweizen or the Sudwerks Tremens Spice, so all your country's brewers did is wake up my own nation's brewers and make them realize that all of these other nations (like that crazy Knoot-Knootian) that they need to drop their barriers to international trade instead of spending their time creating more social justice programs. ;)

The UN can't force a government into a free trade agreement. That would violate soveriegnty. But an international statement suggesting and recommended that we all calm down and lower our international barriers together ...

Now that is free trade! *woot*

For those nations that want to pretend to break the spirit of free trade ... well, those few anti-business nations will just have to realize, that to expect to have your cake and eat it too, means the rest of the UN will just have to put similar tariffs right back up again.

6. MANDATES that exported beer must list all of its ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may access the purity of the imported beer.

I have a problem with this for two reasons.

1.) It mandates something intrusive (but I will acknowledge it is quite reasonable).

2.) You spelled assess wrong. Just for that, I'll be voting against it if it reaches quorum. ;p

I have a problem with this for two reasons.

1.) It mandates something intrusive (but I will acknowledge it is quite reasonable).

2.) You spelled assess wrong. Just for that, I'll be voting against it if it reaches quorum. ;p

Well, when you quoted me, you also spelled Mikitivity wrong. But I've not submitted the proposal yet, I can easily change the typo and honestly appreciate you calling it to my attention.

I did in fact say MANDATES with respect to listing ingridents, but I did not say that it needs to be on the bottles. First, we can change that. I'd much rather have your support and to be honest, I've always respected your opinion. :) Second, my thought was governments still have to protect the health of their people. If a silly nation interested in abusing free trade in order to increase social welfare for part time workers wanted to slowly add something unusual to its beer, I think other nations have a right to know. But of course, there is nothing in the above to stop my government from checking the beer itself.

How do others feel? That clause can be changed ... can stay ... can be deleted. It was put there to protect consumers, but the key idea is still we need to write real Free Trade proposals.

Well, when you quoted me, you also spelled Mikitivity wrong. But I've not submitted the proposal yet, I can easily change the typo and honestly appreciate you calling it to my attention.

Touche. :) It was a poor attempt at a joke anyway.

I did in fact say MANDATES with respect to listing ingridents, but I did not say that it needs to be on the bottles. First, we can change that. I'd much rather have your support and to be honest, I've always respected your opinion. :)

You have? Honestly, that is news to me. I've always respected your opinion too, but I thought that I probably go on about national sovereignty a little too much for even your tastes.

Second, my thought was governments still have to protect the health of their people. If a silly nation interested in abusing free trade in order to increase social welfare for part time workers wanted to slowly add something unusual to its beer, I think other nations have a right to know. But of course, there is nothing in the above to stop my government from checking the beer itself.

How do others feel? That clause can be changed ... can stay ... can be deleted. It was put there to protect consumers, but the key idea is still we need to write real Free Trade proposals.

Stop coddling consumers!!!!

Ahem...sorry about that. I had an extreme capitalist moment. I agree that there need to be more free trade proposals, and would suggest that international trade is something the U.N. should be doing more with, given that it is an international legislating body.

OOC:

This is off-topic for the UN, but since we are kinda debating what is international free trade (which is what I'm pushing) vs. what is an example of the UN infringing upon domestic sovereignty, which is in reality what Knootoss is pushing, this site is kinda interesting:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/WTO.asp

The following is about the real WTO vs. UN:


It is an international body on matters that directly affect all citizens of the world and yet it is not part of the various United Nations bodies, which is a more humanitarian body.

In NationStates, Free Trade topics are thus far a bit unclear in scope. The Metric System and UN Space Consortium easily had a global focus. Scientific Freedom did too! DVD Region Removal (a horrible proposal IMHO) does as well ... region protection is a trade barrier.

I was out of country for the Public Domain debates, but that resolution nearly failed. I am going to guess it was just poorly written ... and should make a point to review it again (lately I've been focusing on International Security / Global Disarmament / Political Stablity issues). The UCPL is another prior resolution I need to review again.

But my point is, that NS is starting to show a pretty strong trend that Free Trade proposals must focus on international issues. Basically like the human rights issues, in order to change or violate (even by suggestion) a sovereign law, the problem needs to cross borders. That is kinda what I'm seeing, but UCPL and Public Domain might prove otherwise.

So with that ... what other topics besides beer can we have free trade for? Well, how about medicine, wine, diary products, fish, produce, automobiles ... and what about price fixing on things like oil production? Is that a barrier to a free market? But what I'd love to see is an intelligent discussion of intellectual property rights. Not an easy topic at all! :) I rank it up there with sexually transmitted HIV programs. A political hot bed and one worth getting into.

The Free Trade could be one of the most interesting UN proposal categories *if* authors focus on international issues and commodities IMHO, because we can really do some fun roleplaying with this stuff. A new law ... er I mean resolution ... to tell maids in hotels how to fluff pillows might seem like a fun way to argue that we are improving domestic commerce, but is the UN really an appropriate place for that? Nah.

Is opening up beer sales an appropriate place? Maybe, maybe not. Will nations argue against this proposal? Sure! :) But when all is said and done, a number of us will probably have built a new sector of our industry in roleplay, whereas with the other idea I think at best we define what a labor practice (social justice) law is like.

Ick, now I feel dirty ... as I've spent a post basically trying to really say, "Free trade should be international!" ;) Just be glad I didn't put on my yell-leader (think guy cheerleader) outfit!

So with that ... what other topics besides beer can we have free trade for? Well, how about medicine, wine, diary products, fish, produce, automobiles ... and what about price fixing on things like oil production? Is that a barrier to a free market?

For the sake of simplicity, it would be better in my opinion to lump wine, dairy, etc. into the category of "agricultural products," "foodstuffs," or "produce." A UN-sanctioned program to lower tariffs against these things would be a financial boon to third-world nations without developed agriculture, as well as nations who's terrain (perhaps your neighborhood friendly island chain) prevents large-scale agricultural development.

The basic premise of the WTO is to eliminate tariffs and other protectionist trade policies, but they thend to focus on individual industries. Automobiles and medicine encompass their own industries, naturally. While I would argue that it is unwise to pick out a handful of unrelated industries into a single trade bill, discussing tariffs in general and not the products they are applied to might lead to more effective policy.

But what I'd love to see is an intelligent discussion of intellectual property rights. Not an easy topic at all! I rank it up there with sexually transmitted HIV programs. A political hot bed and one worth getting into.

The WTO has a specific accord relating to intellectual property rights, which they call "trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights", or TRIPS. Their website presents a large amount of information on the topic, from defining intellectual property to laying out the organization's specific IP policy. It'd be worth a look if you're interested purusing that line. That information can be found here:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm

This agreement focuses more on protecting intellectual property rights, however. When the United States tries to bar third-world countries from purchasing generic version of their drugs, they often cite the TRIPS Agreement. This seems to be promoting a barrier to trade, instead of loosening the grip of protectionist policy. The United Nations would be wise to take it from another direction. A detailed overview of the TRIPS Agreement can be found here:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm

Relating to UN policy, the nation of Sophista is vehemently opposed to the use of intellectual property rights legislation to strong-arm less-developed countries into paying higher prices for medical equipment and medicines. We'd be more receptive to the protection of other technologies, such as computer programs, specific automotive parts, and (of course) orbital technologies,

We do, however, support a UN resolution that seeks to eliminate tariffs and protective subsidies. Globalisation is a scary thing for most governments because it means putting their native industries up against the entire world, with nothing to prop them up. In certain cases, like Sophista's space industry or Mikitivitian locomotives, the dominance of thier programs make competition a non-issue. Weaker industries, however, will likely take a hit when their native markets experience a dramatic influx of cheaper, better-made products. Still, we feel it is irresponsible to prop up an inefficient, outclassed, or poorly-managed industry simply because it happens to operate within your borders. Part of the beauty of free trade is putting the good of the entire world first, and allowing your own citizens to experience the finest of every nation without meddlesome legislation from over-protective governments. We would support tariff-removal legislation on most industries.

Hope this helps spur some discussion.

* The Rep of Komokom plots on increasing access to details on Ennish Shandies ... one of the most popular beverages available in the Strangers Bar ... ;)

The Disputed Territories of Britney and Cletus are totally on board with this proposal. 'Cause we like cheap beer no matter where we go around the world, no matter what country we want it to be from. So, yeah, you have our full support.

We can talk about free trade for other stuff later. It's important to have free trade for the important things, like beer, right now.

OOC: Seriously, this sounds like a way of getting people into the idea of free trade in the first place. Let them realize that it isn't a monstrous idea. As time goes on, other items and products can be put up for debate. Starting small is probably the way to go. And it has my support as a delegate.

Miervatian Bier Accord
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of beer (also known as bier in many nations which have been brewing it for hundreds of years) is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of beer, but place heavy tariffs on imported beer, citing both quality of imported beer and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of nations in which the actual consumption of beer is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign beers, provided that these nations also do not engage in exporting their own domestically brewed beers;

2. DEFINES a protection based beer tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a non-domestically brewed (i.e. imported) beer;

3. ACKNOLWEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax all beers;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protection based beer tariff and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of beer;

5. AUTHORIZES any nation, that is compliance with this accord by having dropped all of its protection based beer tariffs, to enact specific tariffs in response to only the nations that failed to open or later closed their domestic markets to foreign exported beer from that complaint nation; and

6. RECOMMENDS that exported beer should list all of its ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess the purity of the imported beer.

Let me know when this gets proposed. Send a telegram, and the region The Galaxy of Fame will back you 100%.

Let me know when this gets proposed. Send a telegram, and the region The Galaxy of Fame will back you 100%.

Thanks. :)

It has been proposed. The reason I made the changes above is I know how many nations love to hunt for loop-holes ... so clause 5 was lengthened.

I hope the mods don't rain on this idea either. I think the topic of beer is safe enough based on talks about canibus in the Moderation forum. If I get the finger of death on this proposal, I'm guessing its title will annoy people ... though to be honest, the Wolfish Convention had sort of the same issue.

If it gets zapped or fails, I'm more than happy to change the text and title. I've but no where near as much work into this as the Global Disaster Assistance proposal.

Not to be a buzzkill, but I'm not sure that beer is a commodity that will really shake up the international community. It has inelastic demand, fairly steady price, and I don't know of an overwhelming number of nations who punish other states by limiting beer intake.

Again I reccomend steering this in favor of a resolution with broader scope. I would be strongly in favor of an international trade agreement within the United Nations. Those who participate will agree to reduce or eliminate protective tariffs between other participating nations. Those who wish to keep their tariffs are not punished, but don't gain the benefits afforded to other nations by their trade status.

Not to be a buzzkill, but I'm not sure that beer is a commodity that will really shake up the international community. It has inelastic demand, fairly steady price, and I don't know of an overwhelming number of nations who punish other states by limiting beer intake.

Again I reccomend steering this in favor of a resolution with broader scope. I would be strongly in favor of an international trade agreement within the United Nations. Those who participate will agree to reduce or eliminate protective tariffs between other participating nations. Those who wish to keep their tariffs are not punished, but don't gain the benefits afforded to other nations by their trade status.

This is not bad news to my government's ears. :)

In fact, this proposal is hopefully a "gateway" proposal to larger free trade issues.

To date I see the has adopted the following Free Trade resolutions:

- Scientific Freedom
- DVD Region Removal
- Metric System
- UCPL
- UN Space Consortium
- Public Domain

Of these none seems to address removal of trade barriers with respect to a commodity, with the exception of the DVD Region Removal. The Universal Copyright / Patent Law maybe has some merit here as well, even that just set up an office in each of our capitals to basically manage copyrights.


And there are a series of other Free Trade proposals in the queue, that really don't target removing things like protective tariffs. The reasons these tariffs exist is as varied as the tariffs themselves, so I think there needs to be a middle ground. We can't just wish them away, but at the same time, when we look at specific commodities we can see why the tariffs for these commodities exist and better tailor our laws around them.

In this particular case a broader scope might be alcohol sales in general. But I'm not sure if I want to cast a much larger net for fear of hiding the fact that the commodity in question is in some socities considered evil. (It isn't. People say the same about spice melange all the time. But aside from having blue within blue eyes, the spice is perfectly healthy for human, elf, and dancing penguin consumption alike. Where have the dancing penguins gone anyways? I've not seen them since the mysterious crab people stormed out of the forum. Hmmm.)

My only qualm with this kind of approach is that it will lead to something like the depleted uranium fiasco we had a few weeks back. Everyone will pick and choose a commodity they like, and we'll have a string of resolutions that are fundamentally the same, with only the item in question changed. While that might suit some people just fine, I think it's a waste of the UN's time to repeatedly consider what is essentially the same issue.

My only qualm with this kind of approach is that it will lead to something like the depleted uranium fiasco we had a few weeks back. Everyone will pick and choose a commodity they like, and we'll have a string of resolutions that are fundamentally the same, with only the item in question changed. While that might suit some people just fine, I think it's a waste of the UN's time to repeatedly consider what is essentially the same issue.

Hmmm ...

I think if it gets that bad there will be two mechanisms to put that to a stop:

- Endorsements are hard to collect. We both are experts on that. :(

- Voters backlash when they see similar categories, much less topics. Case in point: Markodonia's Sustainable Energy Sources 12,730 to 3,611 vs. Kritosia's Reduction of green house gases 10,968 to 3,984.

Uranium is a target because the game designers hard coded it as one of the resolution categories. People see that there and think, "well there has to be some reason he put that there". And they are right. The game designers seem to think it should be something we debate about time and time again. But they also think we should be talking about gun control and gambling. I don't see how we can do that or even the political stability issue, since right now I'm up to my ears in moderation troubles with respect to pushing a political stability proposal through the queue. Heck, I'm guessing it would be around 80 to 120 endorsements today if the mods hadn't of killed it Saturday night. :(

5. AUTHORIZES any nation, that is compliance with this accord by having dropped all of its protection based beer tariffs, to enact specific tariffs in response to only the nations that failed to open or later closed their domestic markets to foreign exported beer from that complaint nation; and


This is not well put. Needs edit and correction.

This is not well put. Needs edit and correction.

Good catch. There several typos there. That said, I'm hoping nations will let this one pass through without endorsing it.

It was pretty hard to find a way to basically say, "if you break the accord first, I can slap you back with a tariff". Back to the drawing board for me.

Thanks.

5. AUTHORIZES any nation, that is compliance with this accord by having dropped all of its protection based beer tariffs, to enact specific tariffs in response to only the nations that failed to open or later closed their domestic markets to foreign exported beer from that complaint nation; and

How about ...

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protection based beer tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to traffis placed on its beer exports by other nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only beer coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost;

I'd renumber the rest accordingly.

???

Basically I'm struggling with the knowledge that somebody will want to break the accord and claim that they are exporting beer to the compliant nations, but they have no recourse. And of course they do ... in reality we'd put up protective barriers only against nations that aren't part of the free trade agreement. Or at least that is my current thought, but I could be wrong here.

For the face lift, which is obviously now needed, would it be better to write this accord in a "convention" format?

Preamble

Article 1:

Article 2:

Article 3:

etc.

Having cleaned up the Wolfish Convention and Stephanistan's Child Protection Act this evening, I actually liked how for their base line human rights conventions they used this other format. I might be able to do so here.

How about ...

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protection based beer tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to traffis placed on its beer exports by other nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only beer coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost;
Or maybe,

6 AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs against the beer exports of any noncompliant nation, proportionate to the tariffs levied by such noncompliant nation;

IMHO the format you've got going now is perfectly adequate, but if you'd rather go with the convention format it won't affect my support.

Recommending rather than mandating accurate ingredient labelling is an issue for me, however. If we're only going to recommend, then I request the following addition:

#. EXEMPTS from the definition of "protective tariff" any surcharge legitimately related to the cost of qualitative analysis of imported beers without ingredient labels.

Other than that reservation, I look forward to endorsing this accord almost as much as I look forward to the revenue to be gained from exporting Gerardelli Breweries' legendary Dragon Tears Copper Ale.

"And we thank you for your support." ;)

Mikitivity, I'm really of a mixed mind about this. On the one hand, I really like this idea. On the other hand, I am not sure this could even be a valid issue, never mind a UN resolution issue, because as far as the forum FAQs go there is technically no "beer" industry in NS (unless it is considered a part of the soda industry).

Thus coding wise this reslolution would be vastly watered down (bad pun) or thrown out by the mods for rule changes. More than likely it would be the former.

Another problem is that considering the constraints placed on NS UN resolutions, a simple notion like "Beer" can be annoying hard to define. This is a problem becuse you are making regulations based on this potentially vague definition. One can define a "beer" from the classic German purity laws, to the general American definitions (which includes a product essencially made from rice, which should probably be called watered down carbonated saki than "beer") to the even stranger things called "malt beverages." Never mind the strange things that can come from the role playing minds out there.

Of course, the cynic might suggest that this is just another attempt to get the highly addicitve drug spice melange into the universal market. The potential devistation on my own Tzorsland's economy cannot be calculated (in part because I'm too cheap to afford my own mentat). The spice, for example, is known to prolong lifespans. Considering that my senior citizens are currently spend the life of riley reading great works of literature while sitting in the jacuzzi's of local libraries, the last thing I want is for them to live longer! :cool:

Mikitivity, I'm really of a mixed mind about this. On the one hand, I really like this idea. On the other hand, I am not sure this could even be a valid issue, never mind a UN resolution issue, because as far as the forum FAQs go there is technically no "beer" industry in NS (unless it is considered a part of the soda industry).

Of course, the cynic might suggest that this is just another attempt to get the highly addicitve drug spice melange into the universal market. The potential devistation on my own Tzorsland's economy cannot be calculated (in part because I'm too cheap to afford my own mentat). The spice, for example, is known to prolong lifespans. Considering that my senior citizens are currently spend the life of riley reading great works of literature while sitting in the jacuzzi's of local libraries, the last thing I want is for them to live longer! :cool:

I'm shocked that people still think of Spice Beer as a drug! Next I supposed you wish to tell me that NationStates is flat ... perhaps existing entirely on some silicon based planet or something of the like? ;)

If the proposal were broadened to alcohol that might address some of the concerns, but I don't actually believe Free Trade proposals target specific industries. They are simply "Mild", "Significant", or "Strong". Since this proposal deals with a single luxury item, it is at best a "Mild" economic freedom. And here I'm including second benefits from encouraging more trade and cooperation between our nations.

(That is me saying, I don't see any coding issues ... but you are right, the question of "What is beer?" is out there. But then again, "What is a pencil really?" Or what is "Ballast" or "Gambling"? I think if a nation wants to hide behind a tariff on a product it doesn't consider beer, that it opens itself up to protectionist tariffs again.)

OOC: A pencil is a better defined concept than beer. I mean, when on holiday in the US, I saw Bacardi Silvers and similar mixer drinks labelled as "flavoured beer", but I've never seen an ink-using writing implement labelled as a pencil.

OOC: A pencil is a better defined concept than beer. I mean, when on holiday in the US, I saw Bacardi Silvers and similar mixer drinks labelled as "flavoured beer", but I've never seen an ink-using writing implement labelled as a pencil.
That should, IMHO, be labled as CRAP. But hey, that's just me.

The proposal doesn't deal with beer in any way that is really limited to beer. It could apply to any beverage, or even any foodstuff, except for the preambulatory language. One could, if one felt obligated,

DEFINE[S] "beer" as any beverage produced through fermentation of grain in liquid solution, undistilled and containing less than ten (10.0%) percent alcohol by weight with no other intoxicant ingredients

...but that might be viewed as overly picayune or too broad, depending on the brewer. Also, Mikitivity might be upset about the "no other intoxicant" part....

10% or less? What about malt liquor? 'Cause I think that the poor people should have something to drink, too, 'cause I'm a totally compassionate ruler and stuff. And I know they like it strong. So does Cletus sometimes, but I'm so trying to get him into champagne and other classy stuff.

That should, IMHO, be labled as CRAP. But hey, that's just me.

The proposal doesn't deal with beer in any way that is really limited to beer. It could apply to any beverage, or even any foodstuff, except for the preambulatory language. One could, if one felt obligated,

DEFINE[S] "beer" as any beverage produced through fermentation of grain in liquid solution, undistilled and containing less than ten (10.0%) percent alcohol by weight with no other intoxicant ingredients

...but that might be viewed as overly picayune or too broad, depending on the brewer. Also, Mikitivity might be upset about the "no other intoxicant" part....

I most certain am!

But saving the benefits of Melange speach for another day, I think even 10% alcohol is too low of a standard. What you've described sounds more like *shivering* macrobrews like the infamous Cloors Lite or Butwhiper. The idea is to open the market here, not close it. ;)

OOC: A pencil is a better defined concept than beer. I mean, when on holiday in the US, I saw Bacardi Silvers and similar mixer drinks labelled as "flavoured beer", but I've never seen an ink-using writing implement labelled as a pencil.

OOC: Achorsteam and Sudwerks both brew seasonal beers ... Achorsteam has an Ale that in December has different spices each year. Sudwerks has a Winter Bock that I personally buy cases of. (Sadly I drank the last of my Mai Bock, so soon it begins the time for me to finish off the old stand-by Hefeweizens). So yeah, I actually agree that defining beer can be a problem -- but I'll continue to play that out in character. ;)

Actually, why not go for all alcoholic drinks?

EDIT: In the sense of directing the proposal towards a defined type of product, of course...

I'm shocked that people still think of Spice Beer as a drug! Next I supposed you wish to tell me that NationStates is flat ... perhaps existing entirely on some silicon based planet or something of the like? ;)

Nation States is flat? I would never propose such a thing. As for a silicon based planet, my scientists tell me that my nation's nice sandy beaches do contain a lot of small quartz (silicon dioxide) particles, so I can't see why a planet can't be silicon based. :D

Consider that in that mythical land of the real world, ironically in the nation where we both OOC reside in (USA) it's impossible to get a real martini. Why? Because a martini uses a small amount of vermouth, and real vermouth, uses a small amount of an illegal substance in the US, wormwood.

Now I don't see people in europe dying by the thousands, and James Bond still has his martinis, shaken not stirred, but in the US, wormwood is still a drug and thus banned from martinis.

The problem with beer is the loose definition of the term that can be extended to almost anything brewed that has a low proof number. Actually I don't really have any problem with this either, although it is good for the occasional debate, and actually I think that a looser definition is better. Perhaps one should widen the requirements to include such things as mead, and fruit wines, especially since we have a requirement for ingredients to be speifically labled.

The resolution should not be a way of introducing normally banned substances under the notion that it is brewed into a beer. But I'm not sure on how to word that.

The notion of 10% or 20 proof seems to be reasonable to me. A good example of a beer with a punch is St. Pauli Girl, and she is in the 4% - 5% range. Searching the internet I can see examples of 20+ proof beers, Samichlaus Bier (23.60 proof), EKU Malt Liquor (21.83 proof), REFERENCE WEB PAGE HERE (http://www.taproom.com/beer/beerprf.htm), so having it set to 25 proof or 30 proof (15%) might be the best solution.

I guess my coding question was that technically this would just increase "free trade" in general, which is a good thing, but that's my "watered down" comment, since it doesn't specifically help a specific NS industry, and might even hurt some industries ... if you drink beer you're not drinking soda right?

Well, the idea of banning something for a health purpose is different than placing a protectionist tax / tariff on it.

Certainly imports should be subject to the same health standards as other domestically brewed beers. Maybe a clause stating that would be appropriate?

OK, here is the quick run down. If we want a resolution format, here is one take on the accord (named in the spirit of the Wolfish or Genevea Conventions or Rio Declaration or Kyoto ... you get the idea, but the name is easily changed):



As I understand it, "Free Trade" implies that nations have to basically lower barriers to international trade. If international trade isn't involved, it is a domestic issue.

Another approach would be for me to re-write the above accord in the style of a "Accord" or "Convention". I'm sure I can hack something out that is still easier to follow than the flood of pro-business (Social Justice) proposals we are seeing right now.

In any event, if the UN wants a Free Trade agreement, let's make it a true Free Trade agreement. Let's lower the barriers that protectionist nations establish. Let's show the world what we can do! :)


As my sole gripe would have been religious (immorality of alcohols) and you've covered that nicely and fairly, I'll support.

* The Rep of Komokom plots on increasing access to details on Ennish Shandies ... one of the most popular beverages available in the Strangers Bar ... ;)
You're not finding out our national secrets that easily!

This looks quite good, but I would suggest widening it to all alcoholic beverages.

Mainly because Ennish shandies contain more than just beer, and we would like to be part of this accord.

As my sole gripe would have been religious (immorality of alcohols) and you've covered that nicely and fairly, I'll support.

Thanks. It is illogical to force a law promoting increases beer sales amongst nations that aren't going to buy beer, so why kick the ant-hill. ;)

Enn and others, enough of you have suggested I resubmit this to cover alcohol and I will. Personally I wanted to keep it small, but that isn't that big a change and since so many of you have been suggesting this ... I'd be a fool to ignore your experiences.

I won't make it this time, but I'll make Vastiva's suggestions on the existing clause 5 and then cast that bigger net.

This is going to fail tonight, with only 34 endorsements at present. However, I will make the above noted changes and repost the draft here tomorrow.

I'm thinking that perhaps I should rename this:

UN Alcohol Trade Agreement

But I fear this may be to long of a name, but since I'll be changing the word "beer" for "alcohol" I would think a name like this should make it clear that this proposal hopes to accomplish.

I've submitted a new version incorporating Vastiva's and Enn's (among others) suggestions. I hope it is OK. I tried the title "Alcohol Tariff Reduction Accord" but that is sadly one character too long. Since I've been impressed with the Wolfish Convention and support the idea of building a rich history, I selfishly named this the "Miervatian Alcohol Accord". If this doesn't pass, I'll be open to additional suggestions, as I believe we need a proper free trade agreement.


Miervatian Alcohol Accord
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcohol is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcohol, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcohol, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of nations in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these nations also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcohols;

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol;

3. ACKNOLWEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcohol products, both domestic and non-domestic;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcohol exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

7. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

There is some interest in this resubmitted proposal, but while running through the proposal queue I found the following proposal:


Ban Alcohol
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Outlaw
Proposed by: Aby Normal

Description:
* It's effects are as dangerous as some illegal drugs
* It is addictive
* It is harmfull to the body and can cause serious health problems
* It impares judgement which results in child and wife beating, drunk driving, and death
* It is no different than any other drug in the fact that all of the above can ruin people's entire lives; including marriages and careers.

Voting Ends: Sun Sep 19 2004


My government is a bit worried, and would recommend that nations, even those who enjoy protective tariffs would consider that endorsing my proposal would at the very least prohibit a complete ban on alcohol in all nations, similar to what Aby Normal's proposal is attempting to doing in their proposal.

10KM, if the current version doesn't pass, I would still like to see it expressly stated that legitimate costs of qualitative testing for imports lacking ingredient labels are not considered protective tariffs. You never responded my previous inquiry on this point.

10KM, if the current version doesn't pass, I would still like to see it expressly stated that legitimate costs of qualitative testing for imports lacking ingredient labels are not considered protective tariffs. You never responded my previous inquiry on this point.

*blushing*

That was an honest mistake on my part, because I do appreciate your nation's input.

But I'm a bit confused. Does this really need to be stated, as the Accord as it now reads basically says that nations shouldn't have any additional tarrifs on imported alcohol. The testing of the product is something that either an importing government or the import/export company should work out between the two of them, but being a "free trade" agreement, I feel as though I'm walking a very thin line should it appear that this accord actually sets up regulations. *eep*

Maybe you could just point to where in the document you'd want something to be added and put in any form you like what you want. At this point, I'm seriously thinking this proposal will not reach the queue. I've not engaged in a massive telegramming campaign, which is probably hurting the proposal, but I also feel very strongly that until a proposal breaks the 100 endorsement count level, that it is not wise for my government to start a telegramming campaign.

OK, this expired from the queue late last night, but before I'd resubmit it for a third time, I wanted to listen to any additional feedback (including even suggestions that this proposal is just bad or uninteresting).

For the third time, I'm going to go with a much more descriptive title:

Alcohol Tariff Reductions

OOC: I've hestitated doing so because it doesn't seem very RP friendly, but I fear the only way I could collect enough endorsements would be to go into an aggressive telegramming campaign, and frankly I wanted to see if it is even possible to get different proposals to the floor without having to resort to campaigns.

OK, this expired from the queue late last night, but before I'd resubmit it for a third time, I wanted to listen to any additional feedback (including even suggestions that this proposal is just bad or uninteresting).

For the third time, I'm going to go with a much more descriptive title:

Alcohol Tariff Reductions

OOC: I've hestitated doing so because it doesn't seem very RP friendly, but I fear the only way I could collect enough endorsements would be to go into an aggressive telegramming campaign, and frankly I wanted to see if it is even possible to get different proposals to the floor without having to resort to campaigns.

OOC: This is an issue I ran into as well. Even good proposals that the masses would vote for would never get to quorum because the vast majority of delegates don't pay attention to the U.N. There's no way I could think of to get quorum without TGing people like mad, and I honestly don't want to do that. I wish the almighty [Admin] peeps would lower quorum to 2% so we could actually get something done without pissing everybody off.

(including even suggestions that this proposal is just bad or uninteresting)
Uninteresting - check.

A beer proposal needs to be fun, not a chore, IMHO. I can't get worked up about a serious proposal on this topic. You've got the style down, but the substance just isn't there for this one. But maybe that's just me.

Uninteresting - check.

A beer proposal needs to be fun, not a chore, IMHO. I can't get worked up about a serious proposal on this topic. You've got the style down, but the substance just isn't there for this one. But maybe that's just me.

I changed the title into something that exactly describes it and resubmitted it:

Alcohol Tariff Reductions

I'm hoping that the Goontopia endorsement machine will realize that cheap booze are fun and good.

If nations are interested in a Free Trade agreement, here is an idea of mine that was tabled.

Obviously the support for this idea was extremely limited ... it rated only 2.6 out of 5 stars.

But this was three months ago. It would be something of a change away from Human Rights related issues.

Here is a reposting of the text:


Reduction of Alcohol Tariffs
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcohol is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcohol, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcohol, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of nations in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these nations also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcohols;

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol;

3. ACKNOLWEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcohol products, both domestic and non-domestic;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcohol exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

7. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcohol exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost;

I think this is a little too wordy...if it said "MANDATES that should a non-compliant nation levy protective tariffs to any or all beer products from a compliant nation, the compliant nation is authorized to levy similar tariffs" the point would get across better.

I also think it's a little too much to force a nation to levy tariffs, as that is against the spirit of free trade. They should be allowed to do so but not forced to do so.

I think this is a little too wordy...if it said "MANDATES that should a non-compliant nation levy protective tariffs to any or all beer products from a compliant nation, the compliant nation is authorized to levy similar tariffs" the point would get across better.

I also think it's a little too much to force a nation to levy tariffs, as that is against the spirit of free trade. They should be allowed to do so but not forced to do so.

Thanks for the input.

For your second point, changing the first word back to "Authorizes" does not force, it is just allowing nations to protect themselves. (I only like to use the word Mandate when the UN is talking to a UN created organization, not a sovereign nation.)

The reason the original point (which is wordy) is so long, is I wanted to point out that the similar tariffs can only be imposed on the nations that first put up tariffs.

Let's take three countries:

A.
B.
C.

A and B both remove their alcohol tariffs. C is a Fundamental Christian state and drinking is considered a sin, so they won't even allow alcohol in their nation. But a few years pass and C decides it is only a sin to consume alcohol, but that it is OK to export sins to other nations, and begins to sell beer in A and B.

A doesn't care, but B does and raises a similar tariff on C's beer.

We want to stop B from also putting up a tariff against A, whom is following the Accord in good faith.

It is kinda tricky, but it would be fun to work out something that actually works. :)

I hope this makes sense.

I understand that part. In light of that, maybe my suggestion should read:

"MANDATES that should a non-compliant nation(s) levy protective tariffs to any or all beer products from a compliant nation(s), the compliant nation(s) is authorized to levy similar tariffs against and only against said non-compliant nation(s)".

I just think that if the original article was left the way it is you'd get too many confused politicians who would be unable to implement the article due to its confusion.

I understand that part. In light of that, maybe my suggestion should read:

"MANDATES that should a non-compliant nation(s) levy protective tariffs to any or all beer products from a compliant nation(s), the compliant nation(s) is authorized to levy similar tariffs against and only against said non-compliant nation(s)".

I just think that if the original article was left the way it is you'd get too many confused politicians who would be unable to implement the article due to its confusion.

I think ultimately you are right, it is too long ... how about:

"Mandates that should a non-compliant nation levy protective tariffs or embargoes on any alcoholic products from a compliant nation, the compliant nation is authorized to enact similar actions on similar products coming from said non-compliant nation;"

Originally I wanted to just do beer, but I cast a bigger net and am playing with alcohol. I just left of the plural form. And I added embargoes (is that necessary?).

(Thanks!) :)

With that in mind, instead of abusing the UN to create domestic laws, I'd like to see if perhaps we could work together to reduce a barrier to free trade with respect to beer, both macrobrews like ButWiper's generic beer and fine microbrews like Sudwerks Tremens Spice (Sudwerks is one of many popular Miervatian exports).



AP greatly enjoys it's Sudwerks franchise, as nothing beats an ice cold heffewiezen with a lemon twist alongside a plate of assorted Miervatian sausage on Wednesday nights. Especially when a pint is only a dollar.

It is a great time to be had for all.

I would remove "said" and just use "the" as there is no named non-compliant NS.

6. RECOMMENDS that exported beer should list all of its ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess the purity of the imported beer.

Is their a way to secure this list of ingredients so that the general population and/or competitors wouldn't have access to it?

I could see some industry trade secrets being the downfall of some beer producers who use special techniques, ingedients, etc. to make their drink stand out from the rest if leaked to their competitors and/or the general public.

to make their drink stand out from the rest if leaked to their competitors and/or the general public.
Damn straight. The last thing the UN needs is a whole bunch of nations taking a beer leak.

Damn straight. The last thing the UN needs is a whole bunch of nations taking a beer leak.

Well we could pass an environmental (all businesses) resolution that would mandate the construction of many new (non-flushing) urinals to deal with the beer leaks.

Tuesday, your question is a good and serious one, so I'll attempt to address it. I would think that a nation already can make domestic laws requiring a list of ingredients, afterall we owe it to our public to make sure we aren't selling them soda pop that is really cocaine! ;)

I think we all already have the ability to decide if we trust a product or not ... so the way I thought about this is as follows:

I am the Sudwerk's brew master ... the trick to making a good Spice Tremens is not in the list of what is in the drink, but how much and how it is brewed. Is it filtered? Is it fermented on the top? On the bottom? For how long?

Simply including Spice Melange (a very tasty and real spice) on the list is enough to make some people avoid the beer. Spice Melange does give one blue within blue eyes when consumed in great amounts. But others love it. It is almost like magic! ;)

Now, if Sudwerks did not want to admit that Spice Melange is in the beer, then it runs the risk of a nation saying, no list, no exports will be imported here. But what if in secret the Sudwerks manager (my boss) meets with the Randomerica ambassador and she says, "We trust your beer, and will still allow you to sell it ... but no funny business!" (She might even get a nice Christmas gift from me and my boss.)

My point is nations have an economic obligation to at least have access to this information. Besides, we are talking about alcohol, which in some nations is highly regulated. Heck, there are efforts by some in the queue to outlaw it as a recreational drug! *gasp*

If this doesn't convince your corporations that they are put in no greater risk by this resolution, I'd still like to find a way to change it so that both companies and governments can WIN WIN.


I'd like to point out that the common argument against environmental resolutions is that they regulate industry and allow non-UN nations the ability to exploit UN members whom can't use certain resources.

By encouraging Free Trade (fewer UN tariffs) our economies will grow closer and will likely improve. But since UN resolutions are voluntary to non-UN nations ... I don't think we can stop a UN member from mantaining a trade-barrier on a non-UN member.

In other words, the argument "but this handicaps UN members" will be slightly turned on its head. We are building a system that benefits UN members, but gives us a flexibility in dealing with non-UN members.

My point is nations have an economic obligation to at least have access to this information.

Thank-you for explaining that in more detail, I appreciate it, and I'm sure many do, too.

My only other question is will only governmental agencies or, let's say whoever regulates the beer, I guess, in each country be the ones who see this list? I'd say if it was guaranteed to go to a regulatory body, and not an industry, then, this would be a perfectly understandable thing to do to make sure imports and exports are safe, healthy, etc.

Thank-you for explaining that in more detail, I appreciate it, and I'm sure many do, too.

My only other question is will only governmental agencies or, let's say whoever regulates the beer, I guess, in each country be the ones who see this list? I'd say if it was guaranteed to go to a regulatory body, and not an industry, then, this would be a perfectly understandable thing to do to make sure imports and exports are safe, healthy, etc.

I have envisioned (remember, Sudwerks doesn't want everybody making Spice Tremens, just drinking it) that whatever laws some nations have that encourage imports but protect health would be mirrored (on a domestic level) by nations that will be opening their markets to more alcohol by this resolution.

We can change the resolution to only allow the list to be read by government officials. But in general, if a government wants to break confidentiality, a company might want to know ahead of time via a 1-1 negotiation and avoid entering that market place.


Taking this talk away from beer, and into another Mikitivity product: pocket watches.

Brand name time pieces like "Melmo Ltm." involve many fine details. If Melmo Ltm. wanted to start shipping its watches to say Hersfold, Melmo will first want to make sure that the Hersfold government isn't going to pry open the watches and make cheap knock offs.

Even if they avoid the market for fear of the government selling that info or making the knock offs themselves, eventually that info will get out. Fortunately for Melmo Ltm. there isn't that large of an international pirating market on something like a good state of the art pocket watch. :( Not much we can do to really protect our industries' trade secrets.

But if Hersfold were to agree to not take ideas from Melmo, the company might develop a good working relationship with Hersfold and consider that a safer market to aggressively compete in. (But this is hypothetical, I don't have paper work on how big the Melmo market share in my ally's nation is ... I'd have to ask Hersfold for that detail.) :)

My question to anybody interested is, would your government prefer that the clause be edited / amended to encourage governments to only use this data for health purposes?

My question to anybody interested is, would your government prefer that the clause be edited / amended to encourage governments to only use this data for health purposes?

Thanks, once again for the clarification!

I'd like to see the caluse edited/amended to encourage governments; it's make me feel more secure, anyway.

That is a fair request ...

How about changing:

7. RECOMMENDS that exported beer should list all of its ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess the purity of the imported beer.

To read ...


7. Recommends that alcoholic exporters should provide to governments a list of their ingredients and alcoholic content so that the importing nations may assess the purity of the imports; and

8. Requests that governments only use the information collected from the disclosure of ingredients and alcoholic content for maintaining the public health.

I think the new 7 still needs some work though ...

7. Recommends that alcoholic exporters should provide to governments a list of their ingredients and alcoholic content so that the importing nations may assess the purity of the imports; and

8. Requests that governments only use the information collected from the disclosure of ingredients and alcoholic content for maintaining the public health.

Hmm... IMHO:

7. RECOMMENDS that alcoholic exporters provide a detailed list of ingredients and contents of beverages to a given nation's regulatory body in an effort to maintain public safety;

8. REQUESTS that said list remain in the strict confidence of a given nation's regulatiory body in order to maintain fair competition amongst competitors.

Hmm... IMHO:

I like your suggestion better! Danke! :)

Now a question on formatting. For my previous resolutions I capitalized the first word of each section. Should I continue or not? The reason to do this is the words become "keywords". Another reason is by being larger, new authors can better key into the text and see the general format.

The reason not to do this is some people read that as screaming each word (which I think isn't always true when it is on just a word or two).

I like your suggestion better! Danke! :)

No problem; glad I could be of help, as I really like this proposal... and I also like beer. ;)

See, we can work together when I'm not PMSing.

Now a question on formatting. For my previous resolutions I capitalized the first word of each section. Should I continue or not? The reason to do this is the words become "keywords". Another reason is by being larger, new authors can better key into the text and see the general format.

I like the capitalization of the first word because it does denote what you've stated above, I know others who do not like it, because it looks a bit pretentious. If we're going for a more RL UN type of proposal format, then, I'd stick with it, but if we're trying to craft a new NS UN type of proposal format, then, I'd go without.

Personally, I'd vote for the capitalizing every time.