NationStates Jolt Archive

This doesn't sound like it does anything to Free Trade. What category is this?

Furthermore, it sounds like a domestic issue. I'd suggest you take this idea to the got issues forum. It would be an excellent domestic issue, but frankly, this proposal (not resolution mind you ... they aren't resolutions until they've made it past the endorsement queue) sounds a bit like a "Social Justice" category only in that the 40 Hour Workweek resolution was ... though frankly I feel that *that* resolution was wrong as well, it still is a domestic issue.

This proposal is presented as a draft resolution. You make things with the idea/hope of it passing and the text is adapted to that purpose thankyouverymuch.

This resolution also reduces barriers for commerce though information and cooperation. I interpret this fairly broad text to extend to resolutions promoting a better way for [labour] markets to work. In my view, the obstacles to part-time work are mostly cultural and traditional and this resolution tries to remove such barriers. As such, this (clearly pro-business) initiative fits best in the 'Free Trade' category. I know you do not like me and try to invalidate the proposal this way, but it fits 'Free Trade' better then 'social justice' in terms of effects on the economy since it *is not* going to make societies more commie-like, increase taxes and destroy the economy. (which is basically what these 'social justice' things do)

You will note that this issue does not, at all, infringe upon the sovereignty of UN member nations, contrary to the resolution you are trying to compare it to. Nobody is being forced into anything. The UN simply can organise these things more efficiently due to scale advantages.

I am SO totally into this!

I mean, it's like, it takes a whole lot of people to put together a show when I go on stage for my people, right? So I have to hire all of them and spend lots of money. But if I can only hire full time workers, most of them are going to be sitting on their asses instead of making me look even prettier or setting up lights so they hit my good side, 'cause these things only take a little tiny while. So I say that promoting part-time workers is awesome, 'cause that way I only have tlo pay them for the work they're doing!

Yeah, as the UN Delegate for The Galaxy of Fame, I'm all over this. Totally.

You will note that this issue does not, at all, infringe upon the sovereignty of UN member nations, contrary to the resolution you are trying to compare it to. Nobody is being forced into anything. The UN simply can organise these things more efficiently due to scale advantages. Considering some other resolutions you have supported it is extremely hypocritical for you to be playing the 'domestic issue' card.

Count One:
Name a single time I've done this.
HINT, my voting record is made public.

I'm curious ... is it physically possible for you to post once on this freakn board without resorting to personal attacks? I've yet to see it from you ... please prove me wrong. (BTW: This is why I have zero respect for you ... the only reason I replied in these threads is because you have *NOT* created Free Trade proposals, and after my experience with a trigger happy moderator, I thought I wanted to spare you the problems I'm experiencing, but if this is how you respond -- you fight that fight on your own.)

Count Two:
Facts about your proposal (it isn't a resolution):

- Is constructed to help workers find jobs, that is by definition "social justice".

- Has no international standing ... at best it is a "basic human rights" issue for workers, but if it is about the internal market forces solely within a single nation, it isn't "Free Trade". Free trade has to happen between nations.

Here is the "commie" text of your proposal:

Part-time work enables people who are unable to take a full-time job (because they have to take care of children or older people) to participate on the labour market. Not only does part-time work empower the individual,

That isn't remotely about international free trade. That is completely about you trying to improve the rights of people but claiming it does something else, such as reducing trade barriers between nations. The 40 Hour Work Week is another perfect example of a resolution dealing with workers rights -- it was social justice.

Again, I think it is a really poor player who constantly attacks people as socialists and commies, and when it comes time to write his own proposal creates a "socialist" idea to further his idea along.

I am SO totally into this!

I mean, it's like, it takes a whole lot of people to put together a show when I go on stage for my people, right? So I have to hire all of them and spend lots of money. But if I can only hire full time workers, most of them are going to be sitting on their asses instead of making me look even prettier or setting up lights so they hit my good side, 'cause these things only take a little tiny while. So I say that promoting part-time workers is awesome, 'cause that way I only have tlo pay them for the work they're doing!

Yeah, as the UN Delegate for The Galaxy of Fame, I'm all over this. Totally.

You are right, part-time work is great.

But guess what ... you can already do this. You don't need the UN to do this for you.

This proposal is a domestic issue and waste of time.

To quote that one annoying troll from August, "Why should the UN mommy state be involved?"

If the answer is to protect workers and their rights, gee ... it is a social justice issue. If the answer is to force nations to adopt part-time work ... well gee wiz, that sure sounds like a domestic law, what is the reason the UN needs to be involved?

You are right, part-time work is great.

But guess what ... you can already do this. You don't need the UN to do this for you.

But what happens if I tour another country and I have to pay through the nose just to hire their people to sit around all day? My fans are everywhere. And I don't see why the other pop princesses in other countries should have to do that, either. I mean, none of them are as cool as me, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to aspire to my greatness without having to totally drain their bank accounts.

Hmmm...this is a very good proposal. It doesn't mandate anything except the promotion of a policy, which is much less intrusive than most resolutions, and it deals with an important issue that will benefit the economies and lives of those in capitalist nations such as mine. However, in socialist or communist nations this resolution would be unnecessary, and if you were to specify that only nations of certain economic "flavors" would be affected by it, I suspect it would be deleted for game mechanics violations. Also, it does indeed address a domestic issue, and I have a wonderfully consistent practice of voting against damn near everything that is a domestic issue or involves the U.N. mandating something. In short, I might vote for it, I might not. It depends on my mood at the time. ;)

But what happens if I tour another country and I have to pay through the nose just to hire their people to sit around all day? My fans are everywhere. And I don't see why the other pop princesses in other countries should have to do that, either. I mean, none of them are as cool as me, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to aspire to my greatness without having to totally drain their bank accounts.

Let's pretend you are a rock star and not a country ...

Let's pretend you are going from country to country ... when you go to another country, the laws in that other country are different. Why is that?

Answer: each country has its own rules that best fit with that society.

So when you go on tour, should that country adopt your rules because you like it, or should you follow the rules of the host nation you visit?

If your answer is: I'm a rock start and they should do what suits me best (which is a legitimate answer), then you do in fact need a UN mommie state. You basically are saying, "Sovereignty doesn't matter to me, because we should have one nation with one set of rules."

That *is* be definition allowed in the NationStates United Nations. But it is discouraged by the "Rights and Duties" resolution:


Rights and Duties of UN States
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: :
UN membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly give up when we chose to join the UN. It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus UN sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States:

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section III: The Role of the United Nations:
Article 9
§ Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State.

Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Based on this prior resolution, which is two-faced (and very well written), the UN works like this ... it basically says in Section III, that you have the right to demand that everybody change their laws for your convience, but then before that in Section I it says, but you shouldn't over-ride somebody else's sovereignty unless you have a damn good reason.

Now you want to say that the justification for "Free Trade" is because it will make it easier for you as a pop rock start to travel. I think you are right, that would make it easier for you to travel. But it would be even easier if my government just declared your concert tour dates an international holiday and we can do that with the UN too, can't we? That doesn't mean it is a good idea. In fact, to suggest that the rest of the world should change its laws to make it easier for one person really suggests there isn't international standing (that is lawyer talk for having a legal right to be considered).

What you want are a series of bi-lateral agreements for your own need. And again, I don't blame you. Everybody would love that.

But if the concept of "Free Trade" implies that governments are working together to lower barriers of repeating and regular "trade" and "commerce" between those nations. If I want to make a nation holiday to celebrate a pie being thrown in the face of Lacomb (who seems to have left the forum), that is my business. While there is nothing to stop me from abusing the UN and using it to make a resolution saying, "Happy workers are better workers! If all nations celebrate a holiday to comemorate a pie being thrown in the face of a poopy-head, we'll reduce barriers to trade", while technically I'm in my rights to just claim this will improve economic freedoms, it is still a silly idea that interferes with domestic rights.

Based on this prior resolution, which is two-faced (and very well written), the UN works like this ... it basically says in Section III, that you have the right to demand that everybody change their laws for your convience, but then before that in Section I it says, but you shouldn't over-ride somebody else's sovereignty unless you have a damn good reason.

Making it easier for me to tour is a damn good reason for me and the world. My legions of fans should have the right to see me perform, and I should have the right to perform for them without having to scrimp for money for makeup, clothes, and all that other stuff.

Now you want to say that the justification for "Free Trade" is because it will make it easier for you as a pop rock start to travel. I think you are right, that would make it easier for you to travel. But it would be even easier if my government just declared your concert tour dates an international holiday and we can do that with the UN too, can't we?

Oh, totally! That would be awesome! But I know that the other nations are jellis of what I have, and they wouldn't agree.

That doesn't mean it is a good idea. In fact, to suggest that the rest of the world should change its laws to make it easier for one person really suggests there isn't international standing (that is lawyer talk for having a legal right to be considered).

I guess it depends on how cool the person is. And lawyer talk totally makes my head hurt. I need a Valium now.

What you want are a series of bi-lateral agreements for your own need. And again, I don't blame you. Everybody would love that.

But if the concept of "Free Trade" implies that governments are working together to lower barriers of repeating and regular "trade" and "commerce" between those nations. If I want to make a nation holiday to celebrate a pie being thrown in the face of Lacomb (who seems to have left the forum), that is my business. While there is nothing to stop me from abusing the UN and using it to make a resolution saying, "Happy workers are better workers! If all nations celebrate a holiday to comemorate a pie being thrown in the face of a poopy-head, we'll reduce barriers to trade", while technically I'm in my rights to just claim this will improve economic freedoms, it is still a silly idea that interferes with domestic rights.

Yeah, the right of nations led by totally scrub worker types to make sure everyone gets paid a whole lot, no matter how much or how little work they do.

I need to go and get a facial now. Ta!

OOC: Enjoying the debate. You raise remarkably valid points. However, there is no interference with the rights of other nations, as the UN would simply be promoting the creation of part time work without mandating it. If I read the resolution correctly, that is.

OOC: Enjoying the debate. You raise remarkably valid points. However, there is no interference with the rights of other nations, as the UN would simply be promoting the creation of part time work without mandating it. If I read the resolution correctly, that is.

OOC: As am I.

I part agree with you, part don't. If there were an *international* justification for *suggesting* domestic law changes, I would be fine with it. But there is not one. He isn't using the UN because he sees an international problem, he is misusing it for a social justice issue, to give workers rights, because he doesn't want to be associated with that resolution category and wants to pretend to be some business man.

He is *suggesting* that nations change their sovereign laws so that he can claim to be the free trade expert. Basically he is using the UN to make everybody more like him ... that is legal within the game. More nations should do this. But he *suggesting* that universal UN laws are more important than sovereign domestic laws even when there is no activity across an international border. He is doing the exact same thing with the game that the environmental resolution authors are doing, but unlike them, he is pretending he isn't trying to change the word in his image, and I honestly don't think he realizes this! That troubles me actually.

And just like when the Whaling resolution passed, I can promise you that he can expect to see a bunch of sour grapes posts as nations ignore his suggestion should it pass. The irony here is he put on a huge hissy fit when that resolution which had international standing passed and complained how it violated his domestic laws. But now that he is trying to support a proposal, he is trapped and will deny that he is basically making suggestions on how people should run their DOMESTIC countries, and he is completely ignoring so many international trade issues.

That is why I launched my Miervatian Bier Accord. Free trade traditionally doesn't mean, "I know more than you, so do this." It means, if we reduce tariffs, we can allow a free market to determine what we should be doing. He obviously is less interested in a free market than me (which makes since, my government is Capitalizt in the game right now). ;)

Suggestion or not, he hasn't yet demonstrated a "free trade" issue *between* nations. He is just saying, "Girliemen, I know more about how to run your buisnesses than du, Ja. So listen to me now und hear me later. If you follow me, you vill be strong!" ;)

Now he could be right. Could be wrong. I think that his idea should be a daily issue and that anybody playing the game should be allowed to decide this domestic law. I'm just at a loss why he continues to insist that this is an international issue. I fail to see how part-time / full-time work laws aren't a domestic issue. What is next? Will he start talking about next? That perhaps by having people live in their office they will work longer and thus there will be "free trade"? That too is a domestic issue.

OOC: Excellent points, to be sure. However, most UN resolutions affect domestic policy decisions. That's why we get the (somewhat arrogantly phrased) telegrams. But I believe the point you're trying to make is that the UN should not be involved in changing domestic policy when said policy does not affect the international community. I agree with this. So the question is as such: Would this improve matters internationally?

I would give this question a qualified yes, depending on how many nations choose to put the lessons into practice. The resolution increases employment if the advice is implemented by the member nations. This increased employment leads to increased productivity for the nation, which will generallly lead to greater stability when trade with other nations is implemented. Stable nations tend to be more respectful of their citizens and their neighbors.

IC: Okay, Mister Big Word Guy. I'm beginning to develop a huge freaking zit on my forehead, and I'm going to have to go to the dermatologist, and it's all your fault. It's hard enough having to be a pop princess, the ruler of a small country, and a UN Delegate for my region without having to think, thank you oh-so-much!

OOC: Excellent points, to be sure. However, most UN resolutions affect domestic policy decisions. That's why we get the (somewhat arrogantly phrased) telegrams. But I believe the point you're trying to make is that the UN should not be involved in changing domestic policy when said policy does not affect the international community. I agree with this. So the question is as such: Would this improve matters internationally?

IC: Okay, Mister Big Word Guy. I'm beginning to develop a huge freaking zit on my forehead, and I'm going to have to go to the dermatologist, and it's all your fault. It's hard enough having to be a pop princess, the ruler of a small country, and a UN Delegate for my region without having to think, thank you oh-so-much!


OOC: That is exactly what I'm saying. I also think many of the prior UN resolutions haven't done such a great job demostrating international standing. This part-time work proposal is just as poorly justified as many of the other human rights and social justice proposals on the books.

I don't see why we are discussing this. What is next, a law forbidding nudity in the work place in order to increase productive and calling it a "Free Trade" issue? While no nudity in the office is probably a good idea, most companies already ask their employees to wear clothing (topless carwashes and mud wrestling might be two exceptions).

IC:
Well, if thinking hurts, perhaps some a Hackneyian Stout or Miervatian Spice Tremens would get those brain juices relaxed and flowing. And have I got an idea to make it easier to purchase stout beers, spice beers, etc. ;)

As with most... well, actually, all of your other proposals - I don't see how this is necessary. You're fixing a problem that isn't there. If a nation wants to encourage people to work part-time, all well and good, why should the UN promote it?

Okay, your rationale is:

1. Empower the individual

A person who doesn't want to work, whether it's because they are a stay-at-home parent or for whatever reason, isn't working because they chose not to. Therefore there's no point in "empowering" them by giving them an option that they don't need.

2. Increase the labour pool

Shortage of labour is a problem for some nations, but not for others. For us, increasing the size of the labour pool also would have detrimental effect on the wages of full-time workers because of increased supply, and we don't want that.

3. Reduce unemployment

Remember, unemployment is when someone wants to work but cannot find work, NOT someone who, out of personal choice, doesn't work. You don't solve an unemployment problem by creating part-time jobs, because in most cases the unemployed need full-time ones.

4. Make the labour market as a whole more flexible.

Why, so capitalists can fire people to inflate their profits and wallets? No thanks.

I don't see what problem this resolution would solve, and as pointed out by others already, I don't see how this qualifies as something needing UN attention.