NationStates Jolt Archive

Please read this proposal, and vote for it if you like it.



Description: Many UN resolutions require us to spend money on other countries, whether or not we like it.

SEEING as forcing us to give money to other countries VIOLATES SOVEREIGNITY,

SEEING as it violates the SPIRIT of the RESOLUTION declaring that the UN shall not tax member states,

WE hereby declare that all lines supporting this illegal taxing in any resolution be repealed.

MAY IT ALSO BE ACKNOWLEDGED that any future resolutions should be sure not to violate the UN Resolution banning taxes on its member states.

Description: Many UN resolutions require us to spend money on other countries, whether or not we like it.

SEEING as forcing us to give money to other countries VIOLATES SOVEREIGNITY, [/quote]
And where does it say that sovreignity is completely maintaned upon entering the UN?
SEEING as it violates the SPIRIT of the RESOLUTION declaring that the UN shall not tax member states,
There is no resolution stating that. There is a resolution stating that the UN cannot directly tax citizens of member states.
WE hereby declare that all lines supporting this illegal taxing in any resolution be repealed.
That makes this proposal very very illegal. You cannot repeal like that.
MAY IT ALSO BE ACKNOWLEDGED that any future resolutions should be sure not to violate the UN Resolution banning taxes on its member states.
As previously mentioned, there isn't any such resolution.

Please read this proposal, and vote for it if you like it.

Ok...



Description: Many UN resolutions require us to spend money on other countries, whether or not we like it.

Yes, they do. But, such is the cost of being in the NSUN.


SEEING as forcing us to give money to other countries VIOLATES SOVEREIGNITY,

Since membership in the NSUN is voluntary, thus the decision to be in membership is a SOVEREIGN CHOICE. And that membership brings certain responsibilities, this there is no VIOLATION OF SOVEREIGNTY, and your claim is fraudulent.


SEEING as it violates the SPIRIT of the RESOLUTION declaring that the UN shall not tax member states,

There is no resolution barring the taxation of member states by the NSUN. Resolution #4 (UN Taxation Ban) prevents the NSUN from collecting taxes "directly from the citizens" of the member states. Not from the states themselves.


WE hereby declare that all lines supporting this illegal taxing in any resolution be repealed.

Illegal, resolutions cannot be repealed in bulk. And it is not "illegal taxing" since the NSUN can tax member states. Just not citizens in those states.


MAY IT ALSO BE ACKNOWLEDGED that any future resolutions should be sure not to violate the UN Resolution banning taxes on its member states.

No NSUN resolution has, or can violate the NSUN ban on the taxes directly upon citizens. Untill such time as #4 is repealed.

Since your proposal is absurd. We will not be supporing it.

In response to the Neo-Anarchists' reply:

There is no resolution stating that. There is a resolution stating that the UN cannot directly tax citizens of member states.

The intention is clear. Since the government is the representation of the people, taxing the government is the same as taxing the people. When you directly tax the government, you directly tax the people.


And where does it say that sovreignity is completely maintaned upon entering the UN?

Some sovereignity is not maintained upon entrance to the UN. But, sovereignity still exists. The UN has put a limitation upon itself not to infringe upon sovereignity of the people and nations by not taxing them. Therefore, the UN must live up to itself.

That makes this proposal very very illegal. You cannot repeal like that.

Not at all. Things illegally posted never should have been posted in the first place.

Some sovereignity is not maintained upon entrance to the UN. But, sovereignity still exists. The UN has put a limitation upon itself not to infringe upon sovereignity of the people and nations by not taxing them. Therefore, the UN must live up to itself.
Ah, I understand your argument now.
Not at all. Things illegally posted never should have been posted in the first place.
No, you have misinterpreted me here. There is no way to repeal a resolution except for clicking on the "Repeal This Resolution" link. If any other sort of resolution tries to repeal something, it is automatically an illegal proposal, due to the fact that it can't actually repeal it under the current way the game is programmed.

Moving on to Tekanias' response:

Yes, they do. But, such is the cost of being in the NSUN.

You seem to forget that resolutions can be made to change the substence of exactly what the UN can do. I'm talking about resolutions that require governments to give money to other governments.

Since membership in the NSUN is voluntary, thus the decision to be in membership is a SOVEREIGN CHOICE.

Regardless of our association with the United Nations, sovereignity is still maintained. If that wasn't the case, there would not be any seperate governments running the seperate countries. Reasonable people can agree which parts of our sovereignity to give up, and we have already agreed that UN taxes to member states and their people is against the law.

And that membership brings certain responsibilities, this there is no VIOLATION OF SOVEREIGNTY, and your claim is fraudulent.

It's not fraudulent at all. The UN has already agreed not to tax people: allowing it to do so would be a violation of its own resolutions! By passing resolutions implying that the UN would need a tax to carry out what it wants to do, it violates its own decree of national sovereignity!

There is no resolution barring the taxation of member states by the NSUN. Resolution #4 (UN Taxation Ban) prevents the NSUN from collecting taxes "directly from the citizens" of the member states. Not from the states themselves.

Sure it does. The states and the governments are a representation of the people. When you tax the government, you are taxing the people, because of this logic: where does the state government get its money from in the first place? The people. So, if the UN directly taxes a nation, it is directly taxing its people too.

Illegal, resolutions cannot be repealed in bulk. And it is not "illegal taxing" since the NSUN can tax member states. Just not citizens in those states.

That's for the moderators to decide. But, once again, it is against the law for the UN to tax nations.

It is currently legal for the UN to tax nations.

It is currently legal for the UN to tax nations.

Depends upon your point of view. The way I interpret the resolutions, it is illegal for the UN to tax nations.

I'll go over my logic with you:

UN Resolution #4 Bans "direct taxation of citizens". Although you would be accurate in saying that it doesn't say "member nations", the resolution implies that such taxation would be illegal. Here's how.... To tax a nation, that would mean the UN would have to take away money that the nation earned. Now, where does the money that the nation earns come from? The citizens. Therefore, the nation is simply a middleman in a taxing scheme that ultimately taxes the citizens; something that is expressly forbidden. Under this argument, provisions in present resolutions would be illegal, and should be sricken from our books as soon as possible.

So, by directly taxing the nation, you are directly taxing the people.

That's for the moderators to decide. But, once again, it is against the law for the UN to tax nations.It is currently legal for the UN to tax nations.
Krioval is correct. This point has been raised before, and the ruling made. It IS legal.

If you wish to repeal Resolution #4 and try to put something stronger in its place, go right ahead and use the Repeal function. It's been tried before, and will doubtless be tried again.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Krioval is correct. This point has been raised before, and the ruling made. It IS legal.

What is the logic behind making it legal?

Many UN resolutions require us to spend money on other countries, whether or not we like it.


If you do not feel like spending money on other nations, do not be a member of the UN. The UN's purpose is to safeguard all of it's member nations, and the only way to do that is to draw money from its members collectively. Because some nations are poorer than others, the only fair way to do so is to pool the money and divide it up equally among other nations. You may be able to afford to fund all the UN resolutions for your nation alone, but some others amy not.

What is the logic behind making it legal?

The UN has no industry or commerce of its own and must rely on members to fund its various projects.

Moving on to Tekanias' response:

Yes, they do. But, such is the cost of being in the NSUN.

You seem to forget that resolutions can be made to change the substence of exactly what the UN can do. I'm talking about resolutions that require governments to give money to other governments.

I recognize that.


Since membership in the NSUN is voluntary, thus the decision to be in membership is a SOVEREIGN CHOICE.

Regardless of our association with the United Nations, sovereignity is still maintained. If that wasn't the case, there would not be any seperate governments running the seperate countries. Reasonable people can agree which parts of our sovereignity to give up, and we have already agreed that UN taxes to member states and their people is against the law.

No one argues that sovereignty does not exist. However, your sovereignty is not effective against NSUN legislation (that is your "choices" are limited by the determination of NSUN legislation). Your sovereignty is immunized by NSUN resolutions. It is through those, where your sovereignty has been "reasonably agreed to give up" by NSUN vote.


And that membership brings certain responsibilities, this there is no VIOLATION OF SOVEREIGNTY, and your claim is fraudulent.

It's not fraudulent at all. The UN has already agreed not to tax people: allowing it to do so would be a violation of its own resolutions! By passing resolutions implying that the UN would need a tax to carry out what it wants to do, it violates its own decree of national sovereignity!

Your logic is faulty.


There is no resolution barring the taxation of member states by the NSUN. Resolution #4 (UN Taxation Ban) prevents the NSUN from collecting taxes "directly from the citizens" of the member states. Not from the states themselves.

Sure it does. The states and the governments are a representation of the people. When you tax the government, you are taxing the people, because of this logic: where does the state government get its money from in the first place? The people. So, if the UN directly taxes a nation, it is directly taxing its people too.

It does not matter who state governments represent. Tax applied to member-state governments is not direct taxation upon member-state citizens. "Direct" and "Indirect" taxation is classified by source, not intention, since the "Source" of the tax is upon is the state government, it is not a "direct tax upon citizens".

For example, a state which bars the direct taxation of its citizens, cannot tax their income. It can however apply a sales tax (which is an indirect tax), just not an income tax, the first (sales tax) is an indirect tax upon source; the second (income tax) is a direct tax upon source. Indirect taxes are more commonly called "tariffs"... Applying a UN tarif to state -governments is indirect taxation. IT does not matter that the state governments are representative or not (not all state-governments are).


Illegal, resolutions cannot be repealed in bulk. And it is not "illegal taxing" since the NSUN can tax member states. Just not citizens in those states.

That's for the moderators to decide. But, once again, it is against the law for the UN to tax nations.

That is already decided. Resolutions cannot be repealed in Bulk, please reffer to the Resolution writing guide.

And it is not "against the law for the UN to tax nations", it is only against the law for the UN to "directly tax citizens"...

Krioval is correct. This point has been raised before, and the ruling made. It IS legal.

What is the logic behind making it legal?

The interpretation that the use of the word "directly" (in disallowing "direct" taxation from citizens) implies that "indirect" taxation is still allowed. Plus, I think the mods more often ruled towards less restriction, instead of more, when a resolution is not specific.

If you do not feel like spending money on other nations, do not be a member of the UN.

I'm sincere in saying that I wish people would stop using this argument. It proposes that the UN is totally unchangable, impervious to our will, when it's patently clear that it can be changed via resolutions. Of course, I don't mean changing the rules or anything against the rules. I mean, the changing of what the UN does through resolutions.

Because some nations are poorer than others, the only fair way to do so is to pool the money and divide it up equally among other nations.

That's a very black and white way to look at things.

What is the logic behind making it legal?
Have a look at the following UN proposal categories:

Environmental: A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Social Justice: A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Free Trade: A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
International Security: A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Global Disarmament: A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Now tell me, Cuba, how exactly is the UN supposed to pass resolutions in about half the categories if they have no control over matters budgetary? The UN doesn't necessarily collect money directly, but it most certainly has the power to demand unfunded mandates. Money doesn't grow on trees, it grows in taxpayer's pockets. You gotta follow the money, chum.



There are two ways to affect your nation in this game: Issues and the UN. No matter what you propose or pass, your nation's money supply will always be affected by these two things. You want logic? There's your logic.

Environmental: A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Social Justice: A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Free Trade: A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
International Security: A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Global Disarmament: A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Now tell me, Cuba, how exactly is the UN supposed to pass resolutions in about half the categories if they have no control over matters budgetary?

You left out "The Furtherment of Democracy".

You could argue money into any one of those if you wanted.