NationStates Jolt Archive

Economic Morality Act

Description: OBSERVATION:
Specifc morality laws have been in effect for centuries and are still being written today that infringe upon our rights for personal/civil freedoms and our right to economic freedoms.

DEFINITION of morality law is such a law that is solely based upon one or more persons moral code. This moral code may or may not be shared by other groups.


RECOGNIZING that these out dated and/or prejudicial laws can be a hindrance to the economic growth do we suggest the following:

In order to grow economically we need to be able to LEGALLY do what some may consider MORALLY repulsive.

What this Act would accomplish is creating a TRUE FREE TRADE environment.

Nations who feel strongly about the immorality of an act would hence forth place a high income tax (not exceeding 99.999%) upon such act.

Taking into consideration the previously passed UN resolution:
#57 Reduce Black Market Arms Sales

This resolution would compliment the other by reducing/eliminating the already vast black market. People would now take the illegal act out of the BLACK MARKET, hereby reducing the income of ILLEGAL ORGANIZATIONS (ie. Organized Crime, Mafia, Terrorists), and also these people would need to now pay taxes (depending upon the morality code of the nation would these taxes range from the normal income tax to the increased SIN tax).

Since these otherwise criminal people would never before have been able to conduct legal transactions (banking, buying homes, real estate…) they now can declare their work as legal and are henceforth productive members of society.

Hereby supporting UN resolutions:
Noting some scientific research may be seen as immoral this act would be supported by:
#2 Scientific Freedom
#82 Stem Cell Research Funding
#43 Legalise Euthanasia


Please note this act will only allow UN nations to tax MORAL LAWS and no way turn over a previously passed UN law or any UN resolutions that are yet to come and will this resolution NEVER infringe upon any Civil rights of any race, sex, creed or non-human species protected under local and/or international laws.

See the following UN resolutions:
#26 The Universal Bill of Rights
#53 Universal Freedom of Choice


Please help your nations by voting on this proposal today

Okay we got one day left lets start. my first day as a master debater.

DEFINITION of morality law is such a law that is solely based upon one or more persons moral code. This moral code may or may not be shared by other groups.

What laws aren't based on personal moral/ethical codes? Right down to illegalising murder.

What laws aren't based on personal moral/ethical codes? Right down to illegalising murder.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

And from a moral/ethical standpoint, I cannot support this resolution. It's biased way too much toward capitalism, and also seems to want to interfere with the sovereignty of nations.

come on do u know how hard it is to get a resolution through :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :headbang:

What does that have to do with anything?

I think too much power is given to the U.N. Let each nation dictate what it considers moral/unmoral business practices, and let each nation define a basic format of its economy. You cant say that one moral for business applies to everyone. We give to much moral sovereignty on the U.N.

Now if it creates harm to another nation, or can develope into such, then I see U.N. intervension.

Isn't a belief in economic freedoms, and free trade a moral belief just like anything else? The desire to favour economic growth over other considerations is a value judgement based on one's personal belief system just like any other. This proposal is flawed because the author is trying to pretend that other people's beliefs are based on personal moral codes but that his/her own are based on something else.

First off this act in no why legalizes murder (see the clause about not interfering with previously passed UN laws also any laws we may deem nessissary to pass in the future. Also there is a slight difference between a MORAL law and a CIVIL right, our civil rights are protected and therefore are not an issue under this act.

Yes it is very capitalistic, (that was the idea).

my arguements are basically this...
citizens are able to establish legitimate businesses, taking the black market money out of the hands of the underworld and having them pay taxes.

Secondly these taxes are to be dertermined locally.
if you feel that (for example) gambling is MORALLY offensive then under this act you can place an INCOME tax of +/- 70 % not to mention a SIN TAX for people who go to gamble (just like on sigarettes and liqour)

what about prostitution, open up a brothel with an income tax of +/- 90% and a SIN TAX of 90% for purchase/rental of such 'goods'.

but if you don't find these morally offensive then they are just viewed as normal businesses, people go to work, earn a living, pay taxes, buy homes...

the other reason for having the UN decide this for it's members is simply to allow for better trade between nations.

in Holland smoking pot is legal.
buying small quantities of pot/hash is legal
selling pot is legal.

buying LARGE quantities of pot/hash is ILLEGAL!
in otherwords they've now created a ''grey'' market.

a farmer can grow hash legally but can't sell it(legally)
but they find a way of course and the police don't really care, not seen as a priority offense.

Basically they don't know yet how to make it 100% legal with no side effects.

Now lets say we pass this ECONOMIC MORALITY ACT.
that would allow the residents of JAMAICA to legally ship it's cash crop to the Netherlands for big bucks, the Jamaicians get rich and the tourists in Holland get high... everyones happy.

If you establish really high sin taxes on something, that might create a black market as well. And that can be harder to monitor than simply banning trade in that good.

Also, what if people morally believe that certain goods or services (landmines for example) just should not be traded at all? Then it won't matter how high the tax rates are set, it's more effective to ban trade entirely.

Anyway, I still think the position that trade should be totally free with no restrictions is a moral position, just like banning trade in certain products is a moral position. It is a value judgement based on the individuals own personal belief system (and in this case it sounds like Nan Og is being more libertarian than capitalistic).

A lot of crime is aimed at avoiding taxation.
Implement this proposal in your own region first, and tell us the results.

If you survive, that is.

I can't imagine all those black marketeers will be jumping for joy to pay taxes.

Can't see it.

no they won't be jumping for joy, but there will be plenty of ''little guys'' that will, they don't have to pay thier loan shark off (or worry about getting his legs busted up, or worse).

you are giving people the freedom to work in a safe enviornment.

also here's another one...

in most islamic countries women are not allowed to walk around in the open unless they are FULLY COVERED. This is another example of a morality law.
in some nations if the women break the law they'll be arrested in other more MORALISTIC nations they'll be stoned to death.
if they could buy other type of apparal (at a higher tax) then they could walk around as they wish!

I say that you can't pick and choose what morals are good and which are bad...they are all bad.

At least by allowing it all you allow people to have more personal freedoms to do what they want to do... and under this act they would just have to pay a higher tax for it

and yes i can see the point of the drunken paddy... this act can be seen as a morality issue and therefore could fall under it's own ruling of a tax to allow the higher taxes (more money for the government).

but seriously the main reason for this act is to allow repressed peoples more civil freedoms through economic reasons (win-win)

This work is indeed a marvel of advancement in the nation that proposed it. We wholeheartedly support the motion to make morality practical. However, we cannot abide the execution of this particular resolution, and must consider ourselves opposed to it.

- Lord Jehvah, Representative of Lord Atum to the United Nations.

First off this act in no why legalizes murder (see the clause about not interfering with previously passed UN laws also any laws we may deem nessissary to pass in the future. Also there is a slight difference between a MORAL law and a CIVIL right, our civil rights are protected and therefore are not an issue under this act.

I fully support the legalisation of drugs, prostitution and gambling. But your proposal is not nearly specific enough. As long as it simply refers to "moral laws" and "a law that is solely based upon one or more persons moral code" it DOES encompass pretty much every law, because all legislation is based on personal values. For instance, murder is usually illegal because most people's moral codes disapprove of murder, and value human life. Even if you take an economic view and say that murder is bad because it removes workers and consumers, that's still a value judgement based on the idea that the generation of wealth is a good thing, because your personal values deem an increase in general standard of living to be desirable.

There is no demonstrable objective basis for legislation.

yes all laws are pretty much established morals.
at some point someone dictated thier moral beliefs on the group (hopefully for the betterment of that society).

my (newly submitted proposal) Economic Freedoms
clearly states though that the broadbased legalization of laws will not undermine civil rights and freedoms, or established UN resolutions.

you are protected with many freedoms (speech, religion, public assembly...)

this resolution will in no way infringe upon those freedoms.

here's another what if...

Freedom of speech, if you say something offensive to others is it still protected by this freedom?
Well then who decides how far is too far, who decides what's offensive and what is a joke or just an opinion (and the other person is just being oversensitive)?
a freedom is a freedom, gotta take the good with the bad.

that's why I changed the proposal name to ECONOMIC FREEDOM, you gotta take the good with the bad.

I do truely feel though this would give people a wide range of personal and civil freedoms.

Can we see this new text here please?

I agree with Myopia, Nan Og. You are going to have to be more specific about what is considered a "moral law". All legislation is based on personal values. Even a prohibition on murder is based on a value judgement, and creates a black market in contract killings. This kind of proposal would potentially eliminate such a law, in favour of a regulated and heavily taxed industry in contract killings.

Also, civil rights are themselves based on value judgements, so to say that those will be preserved is to say that some moral laws will be kept, just not others. We would be saying that some moralities should be elevated above others.

ok to clarify,

A moral law is based upon a certain belief system, this can be of course said about all laws to lets go on,...

A civil freedom are your basic rights (see UN resolution#26 Bill of rights).

Civil laws are created to protect the group from bodily harm or protect a nation from complete anarchy.

UN laws are also created to the same extent but deal with more international issues.

what this resolutions would say is basically this...
if an act or item is not directly responsible for bodily harm then why is it illegal. (also again will not overturn, either local or UN regulated, previously established civil laws )

The people should have the right to decide for themselves what they can and can't do.

if people want to walk nude in the streets who is it really hurting? if you don't like what you see don't watch!

Why are some drugs legal and some aren't ?

look what happened in the US back in the 20's when alcohol was illegal, there was a huge black market created. This is the perfect example of a morality law.
Alcohol itself won't kill
(of course ANYTHING in exess will kill so maybe GLUTTONY should be illegal, but that's another issue)
so then this is a morality law, it was/is seen as immoral to get drunk.
By having it illegal the quality was bad, so you'd have more sick and dead from the illegal drink (made from potatoes, corn, or whatever).

Now that it's legal it's a billion dollar business... I'm just trying to expand on this idea!

I agree with the comments made by the delegate from _Myopia_.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

All legislation is based on personal values.This is not true. Laws can be based on the need for public safety. Laws against murder are a perfect example of this: we don't outlaw murder because it's wrong, we outlaw it so that we can sleep at night.

That said, Allemande opposes this propsed resolution onthe same basis as it opposes most resolutions these days: it seeks to regulate something that is best left to the Membership.

Let's keep the NSUN focussed on international matters please, rather than turning it into a World Government.

ok to clarify,

A moral law is based upon a certain belief system, this can be of course said about all laws to lets go on,...

A civil freedom are your basic rights (see UN resolution#26 Bill of rights).

Civil laws are created to protect the group from bodily harm or protect a nation from complete anarchy.

UN laws are also created to the same extent but deal with more international issues.

what this resolutions would say is basically this...
if an act or item is not directly responsible for bodily harm then why is it illegal. (also again will not overturn, either local or UN regulated, previously established civil laws )

The people should have the right to decide for themselves what they can and can't do.

if people want to walk nude in the streets who is it really hurting? if you don't like what you see don't watch!

Why are some drugs legal and some aren't ?

look what happened in the US back in the 20's when alcohol was illegal, there was a huge black market created. This is the perfect example of a morality law.
Alcohol itself won't kill
(of course ANYTHING in exess will kill so maybe GLUTTONY should be illegal, but that's another issue)
so then this is a morality law, it was/is seen as immoral to get drunk.
By having it illegal the quality was bad, so you'd have more sick and dead from the illegal drink (made from potatoes, corn, or whatever).

Now that it's legal it's a billion dollar business... I'm just trying to expand on this idea!

I know what you're getting at but you still aren't making the distinction sufficiently clear for the standards of international law - unless your distinction is whether or not the act is directly causing bodily harm, in which case you've repealed laws against theft, damage to property, fraud, and all kinds of white collar crime, but left most drugs illegal, along with illegalising various contact sports, probably abortion, and possibly even giving birth (since it directly causes pain to the mother).

Back from an impromtu vacation (wasn't even given a chance to post on here about it) and I see something like this pop up.

Okay, try to explain morality to my nation. While your explanation is interesting, the laws of the DLE Empire (which includes DLE the nation and three subject nations) are based on necessity, not morality. Big difference.

Oh, and Myopia pretty much has this one covered.