NationStates Jolt Archive

We have submitted a proposal to the delegates of the United Nations to repeal Resolution #5 "DVD Region Removal" for the following reason:

This resolution extends beyond the bounds of the United Nations and unnecessarily restricts the freedoms of those affected. There is no need for the United Nations to have an official position on DVD region, or to impose restrictions on nations without due cause.

The original description of the Resolution reads as follows:

The removal of regions in DVD's that prevent a user from one region watching the DVD's form another. One region is all wek need.

While The Most Serene Repulic of Alianessia certainly understands how frustrating DVD regions may be for some, we feel that this resolution is not appropriate for the UN. If this is allowed, what is next? A resolution to restrict European style electrical outlets?

We must police the UN, not allow the UN to police us.

If you are a delegate, please support this proposal to repeal Resolution #5.
If you are not a delegate, please ask your regions delegate to support this proposal.

Thank you.

~Larissan Tu Loc, Public Relations Officer

Please note: We are aware that there is currently another proposal to repeal this resolution. We would like to emphasize that the reason for repealing this resolution has nothing to do with DVD regions, but rather with allowing nations who are members of the UN to remain autonomous.

what is next? A resolution to restrict European style electrical outlets?

Why not?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Please note: We are aware that there is currently another proposal to repeal this resolution. We would like to emphasize that the reason for repealing this resolution has nothing to do with DVD regions, but rather with allowing nations who are members of the UN to remain autonomous.

Why?

And if every nation wants to put their own encoding on it, that would be 1,000,000 encoding types. DVDs would never sell outside their own nation, and quite honestly it would be a disaster for trade and the entertainment business.

Even if you restrict it to NS Regions there are around 25,000 of them (I think?) which is still quite a lot of encoding going on.

Surely this would be best left as it is, for the benifits of free speach, general good will and so as not to bankrupt the people who make DVD players.

We will not, for any reason, support your repeal, and in fact We would be very dissapointed with Our delegate if they did approve your repeal proposal. And here is why:

#5 is a resolution which legislates standardisation in a specific area of technical development. Standardisation is the heart-blood of international trade (and that one We are all FOR). Besides, it eliminates the frustration of all the Zhaucauozian visitors to Western Pacific who thought to bring their loved ones a DVD from there as a Christmas gift only to find out that it cannot be played by Zhaucauozian DVD players, not to mention the frustration of the loved ones receiving such a useless gift. Therefore, for the sake of Christmas Happiness (just in case trade is something you are not interested in), let resolution #5 stand asit is!!! ;)

#5 is a resolution which legislates standardisation in a specific area of technical development.
Standardisation of a specific are of technical development is important when we are discussing medical equipment or communication tools, but to place restrictions on a commercial entertainment product for the reasons given in the original resolution is unfair.

And if every nation wants to put their own encoding on it, that would be 1,000,000 encoding types. DVDs would never sell outside their own nation, and quite honestly it would be a disaster for trade and the entertainment business.
The decision to create their own encoding or use a universal encoding is one that must be left up to the individual nation. I agree that 1,000,000 different encoding types is unnecessary and ridiculous; however, the restriction should be made by economics not diplomacy.

Standardisation of a specific are of technical development is important when we are discussing medical equipment or communication tools, but to place restrictions on a commercial entertainment product for the reasons given in the original resolution is unfair.

1) What gives you the right to decide where standardisation is important and where not?! #5 has been voted for by over 4000 nations (which in the early times of NationStates, from which #5 dates, is a huge amount) who apparently DECIDED that standardisation in this technical area IS IMPORTANT.
2) You seem not to get it. Standardisation is not a restriction in effect. Quite the opposite, without standardization, all producers of DVDs would be RESTRICTED to sale their products in their own region, and customers would be RESTRICTED to buy their DVDs in their own region. That would be restriction :headbang:

The decision to create their own encoding or use a universal encoding is one that must be left up to the individual nation. I agree that 1,000,000 different encoding types is unnecessary and ridiculous; however, the restriction should be made by economics not diplomacy.

see (2) above. And: international standardization can by it's nature only be accomplished by the UN, since we do not have an International Trading Board or something like that.

Could I found an international trading board? And run it? Cause that would be fun!!!!

(sorry)

Standardisation of a specific are of technical development is important when we are discussing medical equipment or communication tools, but to place restrictions on a commercial entertainment product for the reasons given in the original resolution is unfair.


You don't think DVDs are communication tools? They are used for all sorts of things outside of showing movies. And even movies are communication tools - getting your message across in an entertaining way.

If we can have standards that show how DVDs are written to disc (which we must have - otherwise you would need a different player for every movie) then why not a standard that says "it shall not have a region encoding on it" as well? Surely it's cheaper not to spend the extra time encoding it than to go that extra bit further to put the encoding on?

The Federation of Aligned Planets, as Regional Delegate for Sol Sector, supports this Repeal

Could I found an international trading board? And run it? Cause that would be fun!!!!

(sorry)

OOC: You might put the idea past those people who are designing the game. Would be fun indeed. Especially with you as the ITB president ;)

You don't think DVDs are communication tools?
Certainly they are.
The purpose of repealing the resolution is not to make it easier or harder for anyone to buy, sell, or use DVDs. Rather, the purpose is to withdraw the UN's regulation in an area they have no business regulating.

The original resolution calls for the removal of regions - in other words, restricting the use of regions. It does not say the UN should support universal coding of DVDs for the purposes of standardisation.

Surely this would be best left as it is, for the benifits of free speach, general good will and so as not to bankrupt the people who make DVD players.

Is it better to be left as it is? I don't believe so. I don't believe industrial standards is the domain of the UN. Repealing the resolution doesn't adversely affect free speech. It doesn't bankrupt the people who make DVD players unless they choose to both change their encoding and try to sell their product on the global market.
Is this a life changing issue? Not currently. Left unchecked, it could become a leak we failed to stop in time. I half-jokingly said, "What's next? A resolution to restrict European style electrical outlets?" and was answered with "Why not?" Because, at least in my nation, we believe in civil rights and political and personal freedom. Decisions should be left up to the individual whenever possible, not the national government and certainly not the international government.

Certainly they are.
The purpose of repealing the resolution is not to make it easier or harder for anyone to buy, sell, or use DVDs. Rather, the purpose is to withdraw the UN's regulation in an area they have no business regulating.


But that will be the effect. Even if there are only five regions, DVD Player manufacturers will have to either start making multi-region dvd players - expensive stuff - or people would have to buy five, single region DVD players if they wanted to play all of them.


The original resolution calls for the removal of regions - in other words, restricting the use of regions. It does not say the UN should support universal coding of DVDs for the purposes of standardisation.


No, it doesn't. But I would hazard a guessa that, just like in the real world, there is a standard DVD format.


Is it better to be left as it is? I don't believe so. I don't believe industrial standards is the domain of the UN.


The domain of the UN is what ever people believe it to be. If this really wasn't something the UN could act upon it would have been deleted as illegal when it was first proposed. And if the members of the UN didn't think it was something the UN should be dealing with, it would never have passed, or it would have been repealed way before now.


Repealing the resolution doesn't adversely affect free speech.


It has the potential to though. If I make a film about how corrupt GeminiLand's goverment is, then release it on DVD, GeminiLand could easily make DVD players that use a different region and so they could not play it. They could ban multi-region DVD players in their nation, and thus make it impossible for people to watch the film without actually having to ban the film.


It doesn't bankrupt the people who make DVD players unless they choose to both change their encoding and try to sell their product on the global market.


But for two years now (I think? Whenever the resolution was passed) the DVD player manufacturers have not had to deal with multi-region encoding. They just made players to play DVDs in the same way CD players play CDs from all over the world.

Now - well if this proposal passes it would mean they would have to spend more money on making a DVD Player that deals with the specific encoding. Or one that is multi-region coding.

And every time a new region is created more work would have to be done in updating their stuff.

This would be a huge cost.

And what about the people of the UN? All the people in the nations who's rights you are championing? Their current players would most likely be useless, and they would have to go out and buy another one.

No one is going to benifit from this - except the people who make DVDs maybe, but they have to spend the extra money in putting region encoding in. Then spend the extra money if they want to sell their DVD in more than one region (which is not unreasonable).


Is this a life changing issue? Not currently. Left unchecked, it could become a leak we failed to stop in time. I half-jokingly said, "What's next? A resolution to restrict European style electrical outlets?" and was answered with "Why not?"


Someone already tried that, and it was shouted down. Not because people thought there should not be standards, but because of the HUGE cost involved in such a proposal. And I would agree - that would be ridiculous because of the cost, and this is equally ridiculous on the cost side of things.


Because, at least in my nation, we believe in civil rights and political and personal freedom. Decisions should be left up to the individual whenever possible, not the national government and certainly not the international government.

So what about sex with children? What about Labour Unions? What about Prostitution, Abortion, Euthanasia? What about Fair trials? What about needle sharing, illegal logging, whaling and equal rights?

All of these - it can be argued - should be decided at a national level. AquaLand might have a history of parents initiating their children in to the sexual world the day before they come of age. It might have a history of making a lot of money by selling lots of cheap wood.

Both of those were ruled on by the members of the UN and the resolutions became law, ending the national decisision.

I put it to you that DVDs are an international issue. They are sold all around the world, in every region imaginable. If you put protection on them to stop doing that, all it will lead to is an increase in piracy. Because let me assure you that I would have no problem in copying films from another region and releasing them under my region without the bother of paying you for them. (I am not sure were the UCPL stands on this, but I can find a way round it. Why else would I need lawyers?).

I realise national sovereingty is a big thing, but you gave up part of that right when you joined the UN. And on this issue I don't think it is a big enough reason to repeal the resolution, since repealing it would only cost every business thousands of gold pieces (or other currency), would cost the people of the nations quite a lot of money, would lead to a whole new piracy industry and still not achieve anything of what the repeal is trying to do.

I'm sorry if I miss a point, but I'll try to respond:

I realise national sovereingty is a big thing, but you gave up part of that right when you joined the UN.
The domain of the UN is what ever people believe it to be.
Yes, we give it up when we join the UN but it up to us to control how much we give up. We are under no obligation to blindly agree with every resolution that is passed. There is a process for expressing disagreement with a passed resolution, and this is it.

If this really wasn't something the UN could act upon it would have been deleted as illegal when it was first proposed.
Just because the UN CAN does not mean it SHOULD.

Now - well if this proposal passes it would mean they would have to spend more money on making a DVD Player that deals with the specific encoding.
No, it would mean that they CAN do this, not that they HAVE to. I am not proposing a resolution to enforce regions. There is no cost involved with this proposal.

So what about sex with children? What about Labour Unions? What about Prostitution, Abortion, Euthanasia? What about Fair trials? What about needle sharing, illegal logging, whaling and equal rights?
We as members of the UN have to decide which of these issues should or should not be dealt with by the UN, which we do when we vote, and very carefully monitor the wording and the effects of each resolution, which we do in these forums. This does not mean we all have to feel the same way, or if we disagreed with a resolution, we must agree as soon as it is passed. Personally, I feel some of these are UN issues and some of them are absolutely not.

I agree. DVD's are an international issue. Most issues are. But I suggest that not every international issue is one that has to be controlled by the UN. That is why each day in our national governement we decide on issues, some of which could have international effects.

And I disagree :}

The Individualist Republic of Reason and Reality wholeheartedly endorses this proposal. No entity possesses any moral authority whatsoever to dictate to a producer how it may or may not design and build its products.

Why?

And if every nation wants to put their own encoding on it, that would be 1,000,000 encoding types. DVDs would never sell outside their own nation, and quite honestly it would be a disaster for trade and the entertainment business.
That is not a problem of DVD region encoding; it is a problem of government interfering where it does not belong. The solution is to get governments that engage in such acts out of the business of mandating technical standards altogether, not for the UN to mandate its own technical standards.

That is not a problem of DVD region encoding; it is a problem of government interfering where it does not belong. The solution is to get governments that engage in such acts out of the business of mandating technical standards altogether, not for the UN to mandate its own technical standards.

Yeah - but then it gets even worse. Say there are 1,000,000 nations, and five companies that produce DVDs in each nation. 5,000,000 different methods of encoding DVDs.

Standards that are not mandated by the government end up being the lowest common denominator. (OOC - VHS vs Beta for example). Whoever has the most money gets the most backing for their standard, regardless of how crap it is.

I realise that with governments interfering it might end up the same way - whoever has the most money can get the government to back their standard rather than their competitions.

But to get back to the repeal at hand, to allow the free distribution of DVDs across the world there should be no restrictions as to when and where they can be played. To enact these restrictions would only bring about a new criminal empire dedicated to defeating what ever region laws are put in place, and creating a huge underground for pirated DVDs.

Not what the NSUN should be in the business of doing :}

You're wholly missing the point. Just as the absence of region encoding should not be imposed by law, nor should its presence. Let the manufacturers decide for themselves how they want to build the product. If criminals should choose to violate copyrights or licensing terms, prosecute the hell out of them (in the first case) or let the company sue the hell out of them for breach of contract (in the second case). Government should not be imposing any sort of standard for manufacture either way.

You're wholly missing the point. Just as the absence of region encoding should not be imposed by law, nor should its presence. Let the manufacturers decide for themselves how they want to build the product. If criminals should choose to violate copyrights or licensing terms, prosecute the hell out of them (in the first case) or let the company sue the hell out of them for breach of contract (in the second case). Government should not be imposing any sort of standard for manufacture either way.

And you are missing my point - if the only thing we are going to gain from this is a huge criminal empire and more and more work for the lawyers of the world, what is the point of repealing it?

It's not hurting anyone as it is. It's not caused any other resolutions about plug sizes to be passed by the UN (the only one that I can remember coming up did not make it to ten approvals). It's one of the least offensive pieces of legistlation I have ever seen, and it makes life a whole lot easier for consumers and manufacturers alike.

And you are missing my point - if the only thing we are going to gain from this is a huge criminal empire and more and more work for the lawyers of the world, what is the point of repealing it?

That does not matter. This is a matter of moral principle--the end does not justify the means. Government has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER dictating to a producer how it may or may not produce its products. The practical results of that are irrelevant--it's the only morally proper thing to do.

That does not matter. This is a matter of moral principle--the end does not justify the means. Government has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER dictating to a producer how it may or may not produce its products. The practical results of that are irrelevant--it's the only morally proper thing to do.
I expect to see a repeal from your nation immediately on the total absence of value of the Metric System proposal. Governments should have absolutely no say in promoting shared standards of any sort, right? So it shouldn't matter in the slightest if the fire engine hoses from one manufacturer don't match the hydrants from another. In fact (by your logic), we should remove the ability to specify engineering requirements from all government contracts ANYWHERE.


Your moral argument has no Reason behind it, and it's certainly not grounded in Reality. Try again.

I expect to see a repeal from your nation immediately on the total absence of value of the Metric System proposal. Governments should have absolutely no say in promoting shared standards of any sort, right? So it shouldn't matter in the slightest if the fire engine hoses from one manufacturer don't match the hydrants from another.
Not as far as law is concerned, it shouldn't.
In fact (by your logic), we should remove the ability to specify engineering requirements from all government contracts ANYWHERE.
That does not follow. As a party to a voluntary contract, government certainly has the authority to require whatever terms it wishes in that contract, and refuse the contract if such terms are not granted--as do whatever other entities may be involved in that contract. What it does NOT get to do is impose, by law, a mandatory standard for anyone or for any situation.

That does not follow. As a party to a voluntary contract, government certainly has the authority to require whatever terms it wishes in that contract, and refuse the contract if such terms are not granted.
Sorry, but you're disagreeing with yourself by being practical.
Government has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER dictating to a producer how it may or may not produce its products. The practical results of that are irrelevant.
In the navy, they call that being 'hoist by your own petard'.

Sorry, but you're disagreeing with yourself by being practical.
No, I'm not.
Government has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER dictating to a producer how it may or may not produce its products.
Requiring certain terms in a contract it has with a producer is not dictating to the producer how it may or may not produce its products--it's just telling the producer what it is and is not willing to purchase. There's a difference.

In the navy, they call that being 'hoist by your own petard'.
I know what the phrase means--thus, I also know that it does not apply here.

Not as far as law is concerned, it shouldn't.


So you would be happy - by this extention - to allow DVD makers to keep their encoding secret, so that they can only be played on DVD players that are made by the same company?

International Standards on this will prevent consumers being ripped off left, right and center by the unscruplous people you are about to hand over complete control to.

And - btw - what if the fire department in my nation is a wholly private affair? Would it matter that one fire fighting company provides hoses that only fit to it's hydrants, and charges thousands of thousands of gold pieces to provide an adapter?



That does not follow. As a party to a voluntary contract, government certainly has the authority to require whatever terms it wishes in that contract, and refuse the contract if such terms are not granted--as do whatever other entities may be involved in that contract. What it does NOT get to do is impose, by law, a mandatory standard for anyone or for any situation.

So the government can not impose a standard that you have to go at 30 miles and hour on a road? Cause that is a mandatory standard, enforced by the government.

I think this resolution, as it stands, will save people money, prevent huge businessses from wiping out little ones, will prevent abuses of free speach and limit the ability of benign censorship (that is it will force governments to admit to censorship when they are doing it, rather than getting off on a technicality) and most of all it will defend the right of the people of the United Nations to define laws on whatever they feel is necessary, assuming they adhere to NSUN standards of course :}

So you would be happy - by this extention - to allow DVD makers to keep their encoding secret, so that they can only be played on DVD players that are made by the same company?
I say again, the proposal to repeal this law is not about DVD's. It is about the right of nations, and by extension, individuals and businesses, to govern themselves with as much autonomy as possible. The job of the UN is not to protect consumers or help them get the best deal. It is not to make sure every company that wishes to do business internationally has that ability.
And - btw - what if the fire department in my nation is a wholly private affair? Would it matter that one fire fighting company provides hoses that only fit to it's hydrants, and charges thousands of thousands of gold pieces to provide an adapter?
This is a matter that should be dealt with in your country, NOT BY THE UN. And if a proposal to make all fire hydrants in all UN nations universal was put up to vote, we would vote against it, because if you nation wants to privatize fire fighting services, that is choice should be left up to your nation.
I think this resolution, as it stands, will save people money, (NOT THE ROLE OF THE UN) prevent huge businessses from wiping out little ones, (NOT THE ROLE OF THE UN) will prevent abuses of free speach and limit the ability of benign censorship (that is it will force governments to admit to censorship when they are doing it, rather than getting off on a technicality) and most of all it will defend the right of the people of the United Nations to define laws on whatever they feel is necessary, assuming they adhere to NSUN standards of course :}
Repealing this resolution will defend the rights of the member nations of the UN. As a member nation, it is our job to monitor the resolutions that are put up for vote and those that have already been passed and ensure that they do not infringe upon our rights and beliefs. If this resolution is repealed, it will be the first step in providing boundries for an organization that currently exists with out a charter, without a definition of goals and limitations.
{OOC: Yes, I know the game has set up rules for the UN. This is a different issue.}
Resolution #5 was passed with around 4000 votes. There are currently 38,158 member nations. It is time to revisit this issue, and let the members have a say. That is why it is important for delegates to lend support to the proposal to repeal resolution #5, so it can be put before the entire United Nations.

THE CROWN OF JEANDOUA fully supports the removal of DVD region coding. DVD region coding inhibits the trade of art and information between cultures.

Removing DVD coding is in no way comparable to outlawing European electrical outlets. That would involve billions of dollars of renovation to replace sockets and plugs on electric appliances. However, removing DVD codes costs nothing and is no trouble for anyone, except of course greedy cinema corporations.

-Roi Jean-Joseph le Petit

So you would be happy - by this extention - to allow DVD makers to keep their encoding secret, so that they can only be played on DVD players that are made by the same company?
Right.

International Standards on this will prevent consumers being ripped off left, right and center by the unscruplous people you are about to hand over complete control to.
No rip-off. As long as there's no outright fraud, there's no problem. If there is fraud, then they should be punished like any committer of fraud; no reason to make a special case just for these particular circumstances.

Your problem is in thinking that practical concerns override objective moral principle. They don't.

And - btw - what if the fire department in my nation is a wholly private affair? Would it matter that one fire fighting company provides hoses that only fit to it's hydrants, and charges thousands of thousands of gold pieces to provide an adapter?
Not at all. Private property is sacred.

So the government can not impose a standard that you have to go at 30 miles and hour on a road? Cause that is a mandatory standard, enforced by the government.
Right. Roads are properly privately-owned; therefore, it is wholly the discretion of the owner of the road what rules are in effect.

and most of all it will defend the right of the people of the United Nations to define laws on whatever they feel is necessary, assuming they adhere to NSUN standards of course :}
Such a right does not exist. There is no such thing as "the right to violate the rights of other individuals", which is what the resolution this resolution attempts to repeal does.

Such a right does not exist. There is no such thing as "the right to violate the rights of other individuals", which is what the resolution this resolution attempts to repeal does.

Of course it exists. Have you not read some of the other resolutions? My rights to own slaves have been severely curtailed since I joined the UN. As has my right to lock people up for no reason.

The UN resolutions are supplied by members. They are voted on by members. If they pass then they apply to members.

So if this is repealed because the UN can no longer interfere in the lives of it's members, then all the other resolutions will have to be repealed as well, and the UN has to be disolved because it no longer has any power.

And - by the by -




And you are missing my point - if the only thing we are going to gain from this is a huge criminal empire and more and more work for the lawyers of the world, what is the point of repealing it?


That does not matter. This is a matter of moral principle--the end does not justify the means. Government has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER dictating to a producer how it may or may not produce its products. The practical results of that are irrelevant--it's the only morally proper thing to do.


So you accept this will create a huge criminal empire, that the only people who are going to benifit are the lawyers and the criminals, but you still want to do it because it is morally right?

Principals are all well and good, but if they are going to make the world a less good place, what is the point of following through on them? Surely the principle that what is good for the majority of the world (ie no huge criminal empire, everyone owning a DVD player that can play any disk it is given and not having to cough up extra money to buy another one because now each disk is coded to a specific region and generally not costing the general public thousands and thousands of gold pieces) could override one moral principle that isn't true anyway.

Of course it exists. Have you not read some of the other resolutions?
Your ignorance of the metaphysical nature of rights is appalling. Just because a piece of paper says something is a right does not mean that it is, and just because a piece of paper does NOT say something is a right (or specifically says it isn't) doesn't mean that it isn't. The existence of rights is not dependent upon any sort of fiat.

So if this is repealed because the UN can no longer interfere in the lives of it's members, then all the other resolutions will have to be repealed as well, and the UN has to be disolved because it no longer has any power.
That's fine.
So you accept this will create a huge criminal empire, that the only people who are going to benifit are the lawyers and the criminals
No, I don't, but I haven't bothered to contest that assertion because it really doesn't matter. Moral principle is the only important thing.

Principals are all well and good, but if they are going to make the world a less good place, what is the point of following through on them? Surely the principle that what is good for the majority of the world could override one moral principle
Nope. Utilitarian ethics is baseless and incorrect.

that isn't true anyway.
It is, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Your ignorance of the metaphysical nature of rights is appalling. Just because a piece of paper says something is a right does not mean that it is, and just because a piece of paper does NOT say something is a right (or specifically says it isn't) doesn't mean that it isn't. The existence of rights is not dependent upon any sort of fiat.

I agree with your reasoning that we are dealing with pieces of power, however, the Pseudo game reality is that the rights on paper are the ones that are enforceable without punishment. Absent a god, the only rights anyone really has are those adopted, dictated, and enforced by society. So, you can think you have a right, but, if it is not on paper, excercising that right might be illegal.


Nope. Utilitarian ethics is baseless and incorrect.

Agreed, emphaticly. With this and property rights being sacred.

Government has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER dictating to a producer how it may or may not produce its products. The practical results of that are irrelevant.

I see what you mean. However, the problem with such a blanket comment is that it negates any rights on the part of the worker, and disallows any pollution laws. In essence, denying the government its duty to protect its constituents. That duty to protect the rights of the populace trumps that of a fictitous person endowed with rights.

International Standards on this will prevent consumers being ripped off left, right and center by the unscruplous people you are about to hand over complete control to.

No they do not. They lower free trade barriers by allowing uniform products to be produced anywhere, and shipped anywhere. There other purpose is safety.

So you would be happy - by this extention - to allow DVD makers to keep their encoding secret, so that they can only be played on DVD players that are made by the same company?

Extrapolate this beyond DVDs, as the resolution sets such a precedent. If it serves as an incentive to develop new and better technologies, yes. I would rether grant patents that promote new development and growth than live in a stagnant economy.

If it serves as an incentive to develop new and better technologies

We completely agree with this statement and point out that repealing Resolution #5 would thus strengthen other resolutions, such as the one calling for scientific freedom.

I agree with your reasoning that we are dealing with pieces of power, however, the Pseudo game reality is that the rights on paper are the ones that are enforceable without punishment. Absent a god, the only rights anyone really has are those adopted, dictated, and enforced by society.
Not true. There is a difference--more than just semantic--between the possession of a right and the practical ability to exercise a right.
So, you can think you have a right, but, if it is not on paper, excercising that right might be illegal.
No doubt. But establishing moral legitimacy/illegitimacy is an essential part of rectifying that situation--in fact, without doing so you wouldn't even know that it's a problem in the first place.


I see what you mean. However, the problem with such a blanket comment is that it negates any rights on the part of the worker, and disallows any pollution laws.
Yes, it does. If I can demonstrate that an entity is polluting my property, then I have a civil--and possibly criminal--case against that entity for vandalism. No special-case laws are necessary.
In essence, denying the government its duty to protect its constituents. That duty to protect the rights of the populace trumps that of a fictitous person endowed with rights.
Are you referring to corporations? Even if you reject the notion of corporate personhood, you cannot deny that the owners and operators of a corporation are actual human beings who enjoy the same rights as every other human being.

Yes, it does. If I can demonstrate that an entity is polluting my property, then I have a civil--and possibly criminal--case against that entity for vandalism. No special-case laws are necessary.


Yes, they are necessary, and no you do not have a civil case. When particles or substances accumulate on lands and a person can not show that actual and substantial damages have been suffered, that cause of action is subject to dismissal in summary judgment. Not even given nominal damages. See Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.

Pollution laws create a legal cause of action to enjoin activity that causes the accumulation of substances that may be harmful, as identified by state and federal governments. As contrasted to civil, above, which does not allow action unless damages occur. Your comment notwithstanding.
Also, it is not criminal unless it violates the laws you say you do not need.

Owners of corporations are not liable for the actions of the corporation. Officers are found liable occasionally: when a corporation is named in a civil suit, the business pays. In criminal cases, officers can be found liable.

Owners of corporations are not liable for the actions of the corporation.
This may be true in your nation, but in The Most Serene Republic of Alianessia, the owner is most certainly liable for the actions of the corporation (s)he owns.

Also, it is not criminal unless it violates the laws you say you do not need.

Causing physical damage to the property of another without the owner's consent is vandalism, regardless of the means by which it is done.

Owners of corporations are not liable for the actions of the corporation. Causing physical damage to the property of another without the owner's consent is vandalism
Folks, give it a rest, please. If it's not either existing or proposed UN law, it's got no business here. It's pointless arguing abtruse points of national law in this chamber, as you do not necessarily share common ground.

In Frisbeeteria, the Corporate States set their own policies, which effectively function as laws in that Corporation. While we obviously adhere to relevant UN law, each of the 32 states has essentially a free hand. I'm sure your nation has its own way of creating laws and national policy, and might very well find our methods abhorent. So be it. Unless it's a UN-mandated policy, it's none of your business how we do things.


If you want to argue points of US or RL UN law, take it to General, please. We do NS UN business here.

i get so annoyed when i cannot play a dvd cause of some stupid regional codes!!


if these regional codes are intact again, i'm sure the there would be a lot of people rushing to buy tylenol or aleve because of all the headaches they would suffer with this!