NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the proposal text:Representation in Taxation
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations

RECOGNIZING the diversity of individual nations’ peoples, cultures, political leanings, governmental systems, and economic situations, and the fundamental need for each person or group of people being able to express those unique characteristics,

SUPPORTING the view of many that democracy and its precepts (fair representation, and political license among them) can both address and categorize these disparate situations, attitudes, and lives more justly than any other system of government,

ASSERTING that substantially fairer representation and greater political license (prerequisites to democracy) accompanies ‘local governance’ (that those most closely involved with and knowledgeable of an issue address it), except on issues in which overarching, external intervention is necessary,

BELIEVING as impossible for an individual citizen in a member nation to receive a fair form of representation in taxation legislation made on a UN level,

DETERMINING, in the interest of fair representation and greater democratic freedoms, that taxation of national, domestic activities and products is best dealt with, at highest, by national government:

1.FIRMLY ENCOURAGES member nations to allow citizens the highest degrees of representation regarding the taxes incurred upon them, SUGGESTING each member nation and citizens in that nation regularly and soberly scrutinize their respective taxation system, specifically to understand its effects on economic liberty and social equality, and its general service to nations’ peoples;

2.DECLARES and PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of nations:
(a) imposing or not imposing of taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses within their national boundaries, and
(b) the determination of rate, general type (progressive, flat, etc.) and specific application of such taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);

3.DEFINES “taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses” as including, but not limited to:
(a) fees for national postal service, copy fees for national documents, and admissions for national parks or natural recreation activities, as well as tolls for roads within a member nations borders,
(b) taxes imposed upon businesses which engage in strictly intra-national trade, and taxes imposed on items and services which are made and sold strictly within a member nation, and
(c) taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) farmers which sell their crops strictly within the nation and taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) government workers;

4.ALLOWS that member nations may voluntarily relinquish all or part of their rights to determining their taxation systems to local, region, and international groups (such as an international economic alliance) if a member nation so decides;

5.URGES that nations use this right to tax their peoples with responsibility, and, most importantly, with consent and approval from the people who are taxed, NOTING that unjust governments are often punished economically, politically, and militarily by other governments as well as by those whom they oppress.



Voting ends Tuesday

Previous thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446723

Well, I voted for. I like it. I don't have anything more substantial to add. Well done on reaching quorum in spite of the forum troubles, though.

What the heck
since when does the UN have the right to dicate how a nation collects it's taxes.
Taxes need to be defined within the a Nation, what if a nation collects it's funds in a way that is not recongized as a tax, such as goverment and pirvate company aggrements.

VOTE NO

The UN has no right to dicate what taxes are. The UN has no right to dicate how taxes are collected. The UN has no right to decide how taxes are created.

What the heck
since when does the UN have the right to dicate how a nation collects it's taxes.
Taxes need to be defined within the a Nation, what if a nation collects it's funds in a way that is not recongized as a tax, such as goverment and pirvate company aggrements.

VOTE NO

The UN has no right to dicate what taxes are. The UN has no right to dicate how taxes are collected. The UN has no right to decide how taxes are created.

Yes...did you read the resolution? BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT'S SAYING.

I have been asked by Dear Leader to ask a question in relation to this proposal which has now reached the floor.

The right of the nation to tax as it sees fit is surely protected irregardless of whether the UN says the right is protected by virtue of national sovereignity so what is the point of this proposal. We believe we are missing something fundamental here.

My legal adviser has examined all the texts of debates so far and is unable to make a determination.

A reply on the floor or bilateral by telegram to Dear Leader's office is welcome.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

Love and esterel fully agree with article 1 and therefore support this proposition

Yes...did you read the resolution? BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT'S SAYING.

And that is precisely why the people of Cluichstan have voted in favor of this proposal. We sincerely hope it passes.

How is this proposal not illegal? I thought it was forbidden to dictate that the UN can not, in no future time, do something, which is what this would be doing.

Or did I read that part of the UN guidelines wrong?

(I support this, but I just had that question)

right honourable delegates of the NS UN, once my region has expressed its views then I will debate this proposal accordingly.

in the meantime I would ask all delegates to remember the power their vote carries. 30,000+ nations are affected by the decisions made in this chamber and no nations vote is too small. every delegates vote is important.

a lot of responsibility rests in our hands and I would ask that you think carefully, listen to the debate and then decide on what you think is the right course of action is.

right honourable delegates of the NS UN, once my region has expressed its views then I will debate this proposal accordingly.

in the meantime I would ask all delegates to remember the power their vote carries. 30,000+ nations are affected by the decisions made in this chamber and no nations vote is too small. every delegates vote is important.

a lot of responsibility rests in our hands and I would ask that you think carefully, listen to the debate and then decide on what you think is the right course of action is.

Yes we are aware of how to debate this issue and of course that all votes are equal. I would like an answer to my previous comment before I make a decision on which way to vote.

The Ambassader Plenipontiary

URGES that nations use this right to tax their peoples with responsibility, and, most importantly, with consent and approval from the people who are taxedConsent? Tax? We'd end up with no taxes at all.

This paves the way to anarchy and idiocy.

The issue which I think this proposal should consider most important, yet doesn't touch on at all is Customs' taxes. So a nation has the right to set import and export taxes as high or low as it likes? Or how about increasing taxes on a certain product ie. cigarettes, because it threatens their own ie.pipes, which are then heavily subsidised?
This could have a severe detrimental effect on free trade.

Consent? Tax? We'd end up with no taxes at all.

This paves the way to anarchy and idiocy.

Not neccesarily, all potential governments would state how they would deal with the tax issue and you merely vote for the government you want to deal with the tax issue you want. I understand this is a simplistic reply but it would not neccesarily mean automatic choice of how the tax money get spent exactly and withholding the part of tax which is spent directly on particular sectors which is what you seem to be suggesting.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

Consent? Tax? We'd end up with no taxes at all.

This paves the way to anarchy and idiocy.

the consent can be indirect, for exemple:
-people elect a senate
-the senate vote taxes

I believe this to be a basic tenant for Democracy.


I guess my question is...Should one of the goals for the UN be Democracy?

I believe this to be a basic tenant for Democracy.


I guess my question is...Should one of the goals for the UN be Democracy?

In the opinion of the people of Cluichstan, absolutely not. However, the goal of this proposal is simply to prevent the UN from directly taxing the individual citizens of its member nations.

In the opinion of the people of Cluichstan, absolutely not. However, the goal of this proposal is simply to prevent the UN from directly taxing the individual citizens of its member nations.

Are you sure that's the goal? Cause "UN Taxation Ban" (#4) already makes it illegal, meaning this proposal is duplication, therefore pointless and illegal :}

Well, that plus ensuring that the UN cannot meddle with national tax policies.

Well, that plus ensuring that the UN cannot meddle with national tax policies.

Actually this resolution does one good thing. Apart from stating that a sovereign state has the right of taxing in accordance with local policies, allowing the daily running and maintenance of its physical,political structures, state based defense & research, without interference from an external body

The resolution just puts to paper what common sense dictates, pretty much like the U.N. bill of rights.

After careful consideration, the Senate of Demantlieu has authorized me to vote "YES" on this proposal. While the exact wording at the end, with it's implied threat of force to non-compliant nations, is of some conern to my govenrment, we are prepared to approve this measure for the reasons stated above.

This resolution, if adopted, would prevent the United Nations from interfering in the taxation schedules of any member nation. With this bill in place, the NSUN is forbidden to intervene in any way. Some might point out that the text reads that citizens must be represented, which is a tenet of democracy. I respectfully put forth that not all nations are democratic, and the UN must be considerate of their seperate forms of government no matter our personal thoughts on the matter. The resolution merely URGES all member nations to have representation in taxation, it does not mandate same.

Above all else, we support this resolution because of the precident it sets for the UN and matters of national sovereignty. While we are aware that national sovereignty is the catch-all objection in this assembly, we sincerely believe in the principles of a state unto itself. With these thoughts in mind, the Republic of Demantlieu votes "YES".

James Capri
Demantlien Ambassador, NSUN

The Rouge Nation of Angelfox has decided to vote for this resolution. We believe it should be a nation's decision to tax or not tax its people. Thank you for your time and attention, Angelfox

The Empire of Kirisubo has cast their vote in favour.

We are happy to support this sensible proposal that puts into words what governments all across the world think.

Kaigan Miromuta, UN Ambassador from Kirisubo

I cannot in good conscience vote for a resolution that appears so devoid of purpose. Where is the need for such a resolution?

I cannot in good conscience vote for a resolution that appears so devoid of purpose. Where is the need for such a resolution?

We of Demantlieu understand your concern. Unfortunately, the proper time to address it's purpose in this body was during the proposal stage. However, having been given the approvals of 128 regional delegates, we must now decide on one of two paths for the UN to take.

If we vote "No", we establish that the UN can take an active role in the internal governance of member nations (as opposed to the "watchdog" status it currently enjoys). Thus far, the UN's meddling in national affairs has been by and large limited to the economic sphere, with some notable exceptions (such as the recently passed "Diplomatic Immunity" Resolution, UN Res. #127). Our only other course of action is to vote "Yes" and decide that the UN may intervene in matters of trade and economics, but not in national governance.

James Capri
Demantlien Ambassador, UN

We of Demantlieu understand your concern. Unfortunately, the proper time to address it's purpose in this body was during the proposal stage. However, having been given the approvals of 128 regional delegates, we must now decide on one of two paths for the UN to take.

If we vote "No", we establish that the UN can take an active role in the internal governance of member nations (as opposed to the "watchdog" status it currently enjoys). Thus far, the UN's meddling in national affairs has been by and large limited to the economic sphere, with some notable exceptions (such as the recently passed "Diplomatic Immunity" Resolution, UN Res. #127). Our only other course of action is to vote "Yes" and decide that the UN may intervene in matters of trade and economics, but not in national governance.

James Capri
Demantlien Ambassador, UN

With due respect to your Grace, which UN are you a part of? The UN has spread it's wings a lot further than the economic sphere since it's first resolution three years ago. It has covered such areas as privacy intrusion, sexual freedom, gay rights, education, healthcare, protection of dolphins, dealing with Genocide, marriage laws, child abuse, international co-operation in times of disaster, the judicial systems of nations and many more.

This resolution merely limits the UN role in taxation of a nation - not in any other aspect of the governing of the said nation. Which - in my view, if you were curious - is a good thing.

*laughs* No need to worry, no offense taken. It seems I let my age show sometimes.

As to the UN's sphere of influence ... perhaps I should have changed my wording, because it is very true that the UN has been meddling deeply in the affairs of otherwise sovereign nations, but to dictate terms of taxation? That smacks of a "Planetary Government" which, while not entirely objectionable, is still not something that my government is ready for.

However, by voting "yes" on this resolution, we will stem the tide of UN interference in places it does not rightfully belong, and may even start a trend of reversing past damages. *small chuckle* Not likely, but ... darn it all, age has to confer _some_ benefits. The right to grouch about "The good old days (tm)" is one of them.

More to the point: the alternative being to acknowledge that the UN has the right to dictate terms - of any kind - to individual nations, Demantlieu strongly urges our fellow nations to vote "YES" on this resolution.

James Capri,
Demantlien Ambassador, UN

I do not think this bill should pass. Countries should be able to control their own taxes.

I hate to seem rude, but that is what the resolution is saying. thank you for your time and attention, Angelfox

I do not think this bill should pass. Countries should be able to control their own taxes.
Make a note Schmitty, that's two people who've misinterpereted the resolution so far, I wonder how many it'll be before the voting ends.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR the resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Make a note Schmitty, that's two people who've misinterpereted the resolution so far, I wonder how many it'll be before the voting ends.

This is a point of concern for us as well. We were under the impression that we were in the United Nations General Assembly; we are therefor somewhat disconcerted to find that of the 200 or so Member Nations actually in attendance for today's discussion, a mere 28 responses have been made, with a grand total of 19 Nations voicing their opinions.

Ladies and Gentlemen, National and Regional Delegates. Please remember your positions here, and our united purpose. Remember to read the full text of the resolution before making your decisions, and if something doesn't seem to fit, speak up and ask. The more genuine scrutiny that this resolution faces, the better off we all are.

Respectfully,

James Capri,
Demantlien Delegate, UN

This is a point of concern for us as well. We were under the impression that we were in the United Nations General Assembly; we are therefor somewhat disconcerted to find that of the 200 or so Member Nations actually in attendance for today's discussion, a mere 28 responses have been made, with a grand total of 19 Nations voicing their opinions.

Ladies and Gentlemen, National and Regional Delegates. Please remember your positions here, and our united purpose. Remember to read the full text of the resolution before making your decisions, and if something doesn't seem to fit, speak up and ask. The more genuine scrutiny that this resolution faces, the better off we all are.

Respectfully,

James Capri,
Demantlien Delegate, UN
Oh to be new to the UN and naive about how things go around here, I remember whan I was like that. At least I think I do. Anyway, allow me to inform you that those of us who visit the UN Forum are the minority of UN members. Especailly since there are nations out there who are in the UN solely for the "region crashing" aspect of the game.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*sighs* No, I was the UN ambassador under the previous government, as well. I remember some of the discussions and the relatively juvenile discussions. Still, I occasionally try to impress upon all the responsibility we accept as members.

James Capri
Demantlien Ambassador, UN

[OOC: I was a nationstates player about a year and a half ago before leaving for unspecified ugliness in real life. I'm a recent returnee, but the game - especially the UN aspect of the game - has become much more sophisticated, much more complex, and somewhat mindless at times. It's a bit unnerving. My thanks for your patience, everybody. I'll try to lay off the preaching. *chuckle*]

Hm.

There seem to be some who think that Article 4 allows that the UN can still fiddle with an individual nation's national tax issues (under the argument that entering the UN constitutes a nation giving up its right to determine national taxes). I'll quote the article here, 4.ALLOWS that member nations may voluntarily relinquish all or part of their rights to determining their taxation systems to local, region, and international groups (such as an international economic alliance) if a member nation so decides;

I really don't believe this to be the case, mainly, becuase I wrote two words (actually the same word twice): member. This applies only to member nations, which means that they must have already been admitted to the UN. The second impantation of the word, "if a member nations so decides" implies that a member nation may still remain a member nation should it decide not to relinquish its rights to determine domestic taxation, which, of course, couldn't happen if relinquishing those rights were part of joining the UN. Sorry, guys. It's a clever thought, but I don't think it fits.

Cuation admires and supports this and is thankful that the 5 is only urges for our goverment finds our people somewhat disturbing...

Cuation say Yea

-snip-

Ah, that was the explanation I was looking for. Thank you.

<snip>
More to the point: the alternative being to acknowledge that the UN has the right to dictate terms - of any kind - to individual nations, Demantlieu strongly urges our fellow nations to vote "YES" on this resolution.

James Capri,
Demantlien Ambassador, UN
However, Mr.Capri I would like to point out that to reject this is not saying the UN will interfere with taxes, just that it reserves the right to if it's necessary.

I am also disappointed no-one has made any comment on my earlier issue with Custom Duties and other anti-Free Trade taxes.

Ms. Hodgelett Tirith

3.DEFINES “taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses” as including, but not limited to:
(a) fees for national postal service, copy fees for national documents, and admissions for national parks or natural recreation activities, as well as tolls for roads within a member nations borders,
(b) taxes imposed upon businesses which engage in strictly intra-national trade, and taxes imposed on items and services which are made and sold strictly within a member nation, and
(c) taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) farmers which sell their crops strictly within the nation and taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) government workers;
This would define farm subsidies as domestic, would it not?

May I ask in what circumstances the UN would be able to intervene with the way the government controls its taxation policy? I would just like to clarify this before I cast my vote. The bill does seem to make sense 90% of the time, and I would support it on the basis of the following quote from our distinguished colleagues from Demantlieu:


"If we vote "No", we establish that the UN can take an active role in the internal governance of member nations (as opposed to the "watchdog" status it currently enjoys). Thus far, the UN's meddling in national affairs has been by and large limited to the economic sphere, with some notable exceptions (such as the recently passed "Diplomatic Immunity" Resolution, UN Res. #127). Our only other course of action is to vote "Yes" and decide that the UN may intervene in matters of trade and economics, but not in national governance."

Duke Marechal Leclerc
UN Ambassador to the Republic of New Poitiers

I hate to seem rude, but that is what the resolution is saying. thank you for your time and attention, Angelfox
that nations use this right to tax their peoples with responsibility, and, most importantly, with consent and approval from the people who are taxed, NOTING that unjust governments are often punished economically, politically, and militarily by other governments as well as by those whom they oppress.
That is in the resolution. If I run a dictatorship I have to allow the people to vote on their taxes making my dictatorship impossible.

3.DEFINES “taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses” as including, but not limited to:
(a) fees for national postal service, copy fees for national documents, and admissions for national parks or natural recreation activities, as well as tolls for roads within a member nations borders,
(b) taxes imposed upon businesses which engage in strictly intra-national trade, and taxes imposed on items and services which are made and sold strictly within a member nation, and
(c) taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) farmers which sell their crops strictly within the nation and taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) government workers;

This would define farm subsidies as domestic, would it not?

As we understand it, it would not. We understand a farm subsidy as being money paid to farmers to discourage growing of certain crops by replacing that income with government-supplied money. That's something apart from a tax credit and outside the scope of this proposal, although the purposes of the two could very well be the same.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

As we understand it, it would not.
Yes, and I've just now noticed that the tax credits only apply to crops sold domestically. I really should try to be awake completely before I read things.

Farm Subsidies are like Student Grants. The government pays them, and are not expected to tax them. They are solely for the benefit of the creditor. However, although most governments would not tax this, as it replaces income lost through the discouragement of growing certain crops, more corrupt governments might see fit to tax the grant as well, meaning the creditor loses out.

This article thus could (and I stress COULD) lead to some of the more corrupt members of the UN abusing the right to tax whatever they want.

Duke Marechal Leclerc
UN Ambassador to the Republic of New Poitiers

As we understand it, it would not. We understand a farm subsidy as being money paid to farmers to discourage growing of certain crops by replacing that income with government-supplied money.


Farm subsidies aren't dished out for this reason alone. They can, for example, also be for the purpose of making a certain crop more competitive on the international market by making it cheaper for farmers to produce the crops, thus enabling them to charge lower prices.

Borderline, if not, illegal and completely purposeless as it gives us nothing we don't already have today. I call these sorts of resolutions "stat-wank-resolutions" as they do nothing else except adjust your stats. Pointless.

Borderline, if not, illegal and completely purposeless as it gives us nothing we don't already have today. I call these sorts of resolutions "stat-wank-resolutions" as they do nothing else except adjust your stats. Pointless.


For love and esterel this proposition:
FIRMLY ENCOURAGES some democracy principles about taxation
we like that vey much

Farm subsidies aren't dished out for this reason alone. They can, for example, also be for the purpose of making a certain crop more competitive on the international market by making it cheaper for farmers to produce the crops, thus enabling them to charge lower prices.


{OOC: Thanks! I wasn't aware of that. It's always nice to learn something. :) }

I think this is a totally pointless proposal. Tell me if I'm wrong, but to me it looks like it does two things:
1) Allows countries to tax people however they want
2) Bans the UN from taxing

We already HAVE the right to tax however we want, dont we? And the UN can't tax anyone because of Resolution #4. So what exactly is the point of this resolution?

The people of Cluichstan suggest the representative of Antrium read the thread.

The people of Cluichstan suggest the representative of Antrium read the thread.

I have read the thread. I'm still not convinced that this does anything important.

I suppose it could be seen to not do much, but still it is always good to have in writing what you're rights are. Kind of like a written contract holds up better than a verbal one.

I think this is a totally pointless proposal. Tell me if I'm wrong, but to me it looks like it does two things:
1) Allows countries to tax people however they want
2) Bans the UN from taxing

We already HAVE the right to tax however we want, dont we? And the UN can't tax anyone because of Resolution #4. So what exactly is the point of this resolution?

OOC: You're wrong. At least from my perspective. :)

By the way, #4 "UN Taxation Ban" did not stop the UN from taxing. It stopped the UN from taxing the "citizens" of member states. This leaves the UN with two remaining options.

1. Tax the governments or NGOs rather than the people.
2. Tax people who are not citizens. Some nations don't even have citizenship, or only give it to certain individuals. The people without citizenship don't have any right not to be taxed under #4 "UN Taxation Ban".

Yes, you do already have the right to tax how you want. But keep in mind what Angelfox said.

I suppose it could be seen to not do much, but still it is always good to have in writing what you're rights are. Kind of like a written contract holds up better than a verbal one.

How is this proposal not illegal? I thought it was forbidden to dictate that the UN can not, in no future time, do something, which is what this would be doing.

Or did I read that part of the UN guidelines wrong?

(I support this, but I just had that question)

OOC: You may want to look through the passed resolutions. TilEnca's "Eon Convention" limits the power of the UN by making it illegal for the UN to mandate genocide because of the UN proposal rule against contradiction.

OOC: You may want to look through the passed resolutions. TilEnca's "Eon Convention" limits the power of the UN by making it illegal for the UN to mandate genocide because of the UN proposal rule against contradiction.

A misunderstanding about what "limiting" is then :}

Thanks!

May I ask in what circumstances the UN would be able to intervene with the way the government controls its taxation policy? I would just like to clarify this before I cast my vote. The bill does seem to make sense 90% of the time, and I would support it on the basis of the following quote from our distinguished colleagues from Demantlieu:


"If we vote "No", we establish that the UN can take an active role in the internal governance of member nations (as opposed to the "watchdog" status it currently enjoys). Thus far, the UN's meddling in national affairs has been by and large limited to the economic sphere, with some notable exceptions (such as the recently passed "Diplomatic Immunity" Resolution, UN Res. #127). Our only other course of action is to vote "Yes" and decide that the UN may intervene in matters of trade and economics, but not in national governance."

Duke Marechal Leclerc
UN Ambassador to the Republic of New Poitiers

Sorry for bringing this question back up, but I would like clarification on this matter before I cast my vote. Could anyone of the distinguished delegates give me some clarification on this?

Duke Marechal Leclerc
UN Ambassador to the Republic of New Poitiers

UNR #4 may stop direct taxes on citizens but as members we still have to pay some taxes to the UN.

its like paying an annual membership fee at a golf club.

some resolutions also need contributions made to the NSUN as well.

on the whole 'UN taxes' are your membership dues and contributions that all member states pay because of certain resolutions.

Sorry for bringing this question back up, but I would like clarification on this matter before I cast my vote. Could anyone of the distinguished delegates give me some clarification on this?

Duke Marechal Leclerc
UN Ambassador to the Republic of New Poitiers

I'll do my best to address your concerns, Ambassador Leclerc.

May I ask in what circumstances the UN would be able to intervene with the way the government controls its taxation policy? I would just like to clarify this before I cast my vote. The bill does seem to make sense 90% of the time, and I would support it on the basis of the following quote from our distinguished colleagues from Demantlieu:

A very good question.

[OOC: There are Out-of-Character limits on what the UN can do with taxes because if we start trying to set an income tax or change an income tax then we're trying to force a game mechanics change that just can't be enforced by the current game engine. Now let's go back to the In-Character stuff.]

Resolution #4 "UN Taxation Ban" sets a limit for the UN in terms of whom it can tax. It disallowed the UN from taxing the "citizens" of member states. This leaves the UN with two remaining options.

1. Tax the governments or NGOs rather than the people.
2. Tax people who are not citizens. Some nations don't even have citizenship, or only give it to certain individuals. The people without citizenship don't have any right not to be taxed by the UN under #4 "UN Taxation Ban".

"If we vote "No", we establish that the UN can take an active role in the internal governance of member nations (as opposed to the "watchdog" status it currently enjoys). Thus far, the UN's meddling in national affairs has been by and large limited to the economic sphere, with some notable exceptions (such as the recently passed "Diplomatic Immunity" Resolution, UN Res. #127). Our only other course of action is to vote "Yes" and decide that the UN may intervene in matters of trade and economics, but not in national governance."

With respect to the representative from Demantlieu, I find that he has his facts rather skewed. First, if we review the entire list of resolutions passed by this body (while of course ignoring those that have been repealed and are no longer in effect), then we find an overwhelming pattern of UN intervention in national affairs, and most certainly not confined to the economic sphere given the common occurence of Human Rights resolutions that set or restrict national policy.

His point that a vote AGAINST this resolution is an implicit recognizance of the propriety of UN intervention in national affairs is quite true, and his decision to draw a distinction between national governance and appropriate international governance is one I respect.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Right, after a brief conference with my First Minister of New Poitiers, Jean Jaurès, and taking into what the distinguished delegate from the Texan Hotrodders has clarified, we have come to the decision to vote YES on this resolution. We sincerely hope it passes.

Duke Marechal Leclerc
UN Ambassador to the Republic of New Poitiers

Hmmm...we seem to be going through a Furtherment of Democracy phase at the moment, so we not?

The Community of the Frozen Chosen is currently leaning against supporting this resolution, but we have a couple questions.

In regards to Article 3, why isn't income tax explicitly mentioned? By leaving it in the grey area of "not limited to" you are leaving an opening for UN intervention into income taxes. To leave this prevalent tax form out of your protection of national soverignty seems like a gross oversight.

A devils advocate scenario for Article 4: A nation X and a very close ally Y (or perhaps a nearby nation that is basically its economic slave) sign a treaty creating a international body to help govern relations in between the two nations (OOC: along the lines of creating a regional government in a region that just consists of 1 player and his/her puppets). X surrenders its right to determine taxation to the regional body (note potentially the nation's dictator, not the citizens, could make this decision) and then militarily pressures Y to do the same. Then X uses the regional government, which it controls due to its sheer military clout, to enforce unrepresented taxes on both X and Y and hen give the money back to the government of X.

Its a bit convoluted, but represents a relatively elementary workaround that is actually worse for the international community in the long run.

Because of these two things, how does this resolution do anything more than give lip serving to the ideal of having representation in taxation? It appears to simply encourage a slight restructuing or re-titling of a nations tax system, rather than any sort of true change (though I'm not convinced true change is practical nor proper with respect to national sovereignty).

In regards to Article 3, why isn't income tax explicitly mentioned? By leaving it in the grey area of "not limited to" you are leaving an opening for UN intervention into income taxes. To leave this prevalent tax form out of your protection of national soverignty seems like a gross oversight.

OOC: The UN can't change income taxes anyway because of game mechanics.

I'll let PC answer the rest since he's the author of the resolution and probably understands its effects better than I do when it comes to specific scenarios like this.

A devils advocate scenario for Article 4: A nation X and a very close ally Y (or perhaps a nearby nation that is basically its economic slave) sign a treaty creating a international body to help govern relations in between the two nations (OOC: along the lines of creating a regional government in a region that just consists of 1 player and his/her puppets). X surrenders its right to determine taxation to the regional body (note potentially the nation's dictator, not the citizens, could make this decision) and then militarily pressures Y to do the same. Then X uses the regional government, which it controls due to its sheer military clout, to enforce unrepresented taxes on both X and Y and hen give the money back to the government of X.

Its a bit convoluted, but represents a relatively elementary workaround that is actually worse for the international community in the long run.
Either way, it'd be a heck of a good RP, I'd say.

In response, I'm trying to keep this proposal very focused on the one part of representation in taxation: national governmental rights. There are a lot of ways to further encourage representation in taxation (encourage that national governments give their citizens certain ways of disputing the tax code/getting rid of officials whose tax policy they don't like, require international or regional politics to have certain democratic policies, etc.), but I really didn't want to get into a debate about those things, and how they would best be implemented. (Often such a discussion would be a "better of two evils", or a "better of two goods" discussion.) Instead, I needed to focus on the first step: stopping the most obvious international body from interfering in national taxes. Lesser threats could be dealt with at later times, later proposals.


Because of these two things, how does this resolution do anything more than give lip serving to the ideal of having representation in taxation? It appears to simply encourage a slight restructuing or re-titling of a nations tax system, rather than any sort of true change (though I'm not convinced true change is practical nor proper with respect to national sovereignty).
It's not so much interested in making nations have representation in taxation. It's interested in making certain the UN, which cannot possibly be representative of an individual citizen, does not impose unwanted taxes on that citizen. Further encouragement towards representation in taxation on a national level is very muh welcome by me, though it's not the primary purpose of this proposal.

However, Mr.Capri I would like to point out that to reject this is not saying the UN will interfere with taxes, just that it reserves the right to if it's necessary.

I am also disappointed no-one has made any comment on my earlier issue with Custom Duties and other anti-Free Trade taxes.

Ms. Hodgelett Tirith

With respect, Ms. Tirith, the objection of my government is in the idea that the UN may interfere at all. It is true that a "NO" vote will not mean that the UN will imediately begin to dictate terms. However, it will mean that at some future point the precident will have been established, by majority vote, that the UN has the right to do just that. With this in mind, we respectfully submit that the only reasonable course of action for all nations who value the right of their government to enact it's own legislature is to vote "YES".

Further, I believe that customs duties, protective tarriffs, and their like would remain the sole dominion of the national government. I believe, but may be incorrect on this, that taxes such as these are protected under this resolution, making them immune to UN tampering. [OOC: prohibiting protective tarriffs and the like would violate game mechanics, as there are a few issues with that as their primary factor]

With respect to the representative from Demantlieu, I find that he has his facts rather skewed. First, if we review the entire list of resolutions passed by this body (while of course ignoring those that have been repealed and are no longer in effect), then we find an overwhelming pattern of UN intervention in national affairs, and most certainly not confined to the economic sphere given the common occurence of Human Rights resolutions that set or restrict national policy.

His point that a vote AGAINST this resolution is an implicit recognizance of the propriety of UN intervention in national affairs is quite true, and his decision to draw a distinction between national governance and appropriate international governance is one I respect.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

*small chuckle* My thanks, Minister Jones, for your support on this point. You will forgive me, I'm sure, for ignoring Human Rights resolutions in my analysis of the UN's interference in national affairs. However, I believe strongly in the UN's right to do so, since human rights are fundamental to all people, no matter their national affiliation. The discussion at hand, however - I would contribute more, if our esteemed collegues from Texan Hotrodders had not made our point for us. We reiterate, however, that this measure is of inestimable importance. A "NO" Vote on this measure confirms the right of the UN to dictate terms of internal affairs to national governments.

All nations are strongly urged to vote "YES" on this measure to preserve their sovereign right to determine their own taxes.

James Capri,
Demantlien Ambassador, UN

I do not particularily agree with this resolution. By giving citizens more power than they so deserve, and more power than they know how to use properly, we will weaken our governements and take one more closer a step to pure anarchy...

You don't want that.

Either way, it'd be a heck of a good RP, I'd say.

Agreed.

It's not so much interested in making nations have representation in taxation. It's interested in making certain the UN, which cannot possibly be representative of an individual citizen, does not impose unwanted taxes on that citizen.

Why can't the UN be representiative? If a nation votes for their UN ambassador in an election rather than through a government appointment, wouldn't that ambassador then be acting as a representiative that could under this resolution pprove a tax? How is an elected ambassador any different than an elected senator? And its already been stated on tn this thread that senators etc are acceptable forms of representation.

More importantly, if your entire purpose is to protect citizens of member nations from taxation by the UN, that's already covered by the UN Taxation Ban UNR#4.

Still, in re-reading the resolution it still feels like its more aimed at forcing representation in nations than in the UN....

I do not particularily agree with this resolution. By giving citizens more power than they so deserve, and more power than they know how to use properly, we will weaken our governements and take one more closer a step to pure anarchy...

You don't want that.

OOC: No...anarchy would be awful. Who would want to live in a place where you can make your own choices and be held responsible for those choices by the other folks in your community rather than an overbearing and oppressive government?;)

OOC: No...anarchy would be awful. Who would want to live in a place where you can make your own choices and be held responsible for those choices by the other folks in your community rather than an overbearing and oppressive government?;)

What kind of Anarchy are we referring to here? Individualist Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism...

Besides, Anarchy is perfectly capable of creating tyranny, simply on a smaller scale. People will inherently drift towards stronger leaders in any community, especially a voluntary one and this can create dictatorial situations, where the strongest dominate all others. A sort of governmental 'survival of the fittest', if you will.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Since you quoted my OOC post, I'll continue to respond OOC.

What kind of Anarchy are we referring to here? Individualist Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism...

Anarchy in general.

Besides, Anarchy is perfectly capable of creating tyranny, simply on a smaller scale.

Certainly. Tyranny won't be gone just because government is gone, especially if we refer to anarchy as chaos. It's just that it's on a smaller scale. The benefit is that the tyrannical no longer have such a powerful mechanism by which to perpetuate oppression and tyrannize on a grand level.

People will inherently drift towards stronger leaders in any community, especially a voluntary one and this can create dictatorial situations, where the strongest dominate all others.

Then it becomes a dictatorship, not an anarchy.:)

A sort of governmental 'survival of the fittest', if you will.

Actually, 'survival of the fittest' or more accurately, 'rule by the fittest' which is what you described, can either be a meritocracy or aristocracy depending on the circumstances.

But perhaps we begin to stray from the topic of the thread...a little bit. Okay, maybe a lot.;)

The Armed Republic of Nethyril has voted NO on this Resolution At Vote. The Nethyrian government, which is ruled by the military, is against being told on how they collect money, oppressive or not.

The Armed Republic of Nethyril has voted NO on this Resolution At Vote. The Nethyrian government, which is ruled by the military, is against being told on how they collect money, oppressive or not.

This resolution does just that - it lets you decide how you collect your money!

This resolution does just that - it lets you decide how you collect your money!

Yes, and perhaps this is a good thing.

It is, however, articles 1 and 5 that sicken the people of Moldavistan, filling our middles with colic, and raising a stinging bile in our throats.

Resolution 4 protects member states from direct UN taxation. It is said that this resolution would go further in protecting the fiscal sovereignty of nations by restricting the ability of the UN to meddle in the taxation policies of its members. The people of Moldavistan concede that this is a concept as fundamentally important as the concept enshrined in Resolution 4.

Our concerns stem from the ideological intentions mentioned in articles 1 and 5. These seem to further qualify the stated aim of protecting sovereign right in determination of taxation policy within member nations. We, the people of Moldavistan, wonder why such further qualifaction must exist, and why it is necessary to entwine this with the aim of the proposed resolution. We feel that this would be analogous to passing a resolution which states that all members should be completely free to implement national dress codes, but they had better choose a dress code which utilizes the fabric velvet, because velvet is best. Forgive us this analogy; we simply hope to illustrate the bizarre nature of this coupling.

As a result, the people of Moldavistan urge fellow members to reject this resolution on the basis that the intentions clearly stated in articles 1 and 5 obfuscate its intended aim with unnecessary window-dressing. The people of Moldavistan are interested in protecting our sovereign right to determine our own taxation policy, yet we can not accept this resolution, or any similar resolution, until such a time as one is proposed free of any ideological baggage.


Jamil Fareshta Rukhshana
Peoples Representative of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan, UN

Yes, and perhaps this is a good thing.

It is, however, articles 1 and 5 that sicken the people of Moldavistan, filling our middles with colic, and raising a stinging bile in our throats.

Resolution 4 protects member states from direct UN taxation. It is said that this resolution would go further in protecting the fiscal sovereignty of nations by restricting the ability of the UN to meddle in the taxation policies of its members. The people of Moldavistan concede that this is a concept as fundamentally important as the concept enshrined in Resolution 4.

Our concerns stem from the ideological intentions mentioned in articles 1 and 5. These seem to further qualify the stated aim of protecting sovereign right in determination of taxation policy within member nations. We, the people of Moldavistan, wonder why such further qualifaction must exist, and why it is necessary to entwine this with the aim of the proposed resolution. We feel that this would be analogous to passing a resolution which states that all members should be completely free to implement national dress codes, but they had better choose a dress code which utilizes the fabric velvet, because velvet is best. Forgive us this analogy; we simply hope to illustrate the bizarre nature of this coupling.

As a result, the people of Moldavistan urge fellow members to reject this resolution on the basis that the intentions clearly stated in articles 1 and 5 obfuscate its intended aim with unnecessary window-dressing. The people of Moldavistan are interested in protecting our sovereign right to determine our own taxation policy, yet we can not accept this resolution, or any similar resolution, until such a time as one is proposed free of any ideological baggage.


Jamil Fareshta Rukhshana
Peoples Representative of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan, UN

I find I have to agree with him. While this proposal is an arguement against too much UN interference, and an arguement in defence of National Sovereignty, it does more or less explicitly call for all governments to become democratic, to one degree or another.

And as such I have to change my vote from for, to against.

If some one could explain to me what the heck this Resolution is saying let alone proposing I may be compelled to reverse my vote against said legislation. Currently the flowery language seems long winded and without content.

Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

158 Endorsements and counting

BTW: Tgram me personally cause getting to this forum is a nightmare

Originally posted by Moldavistan
We, the people of Moldavistan, wonder why such further qualifaction must exist, and why it is necessary to entwine this with the aim of the proposed resolution. We feel that this would be analogous to passing a resolution which states that all members should be completely free to implement national dress codes, but they had better choose a dress code which utilizes the fabric velvet, because velvet is best. Forgive us this analogy; we simply hope to illustrate the bizarre nature of this coupling.


The article is only an exhortation of how nations should tax their citizens. There are many nations that tax their people at a rate of 100%. The only thing this resolution does is to put into writing an implicit law saying that if you wish to exercise the right to tax your people, it is encouraged (not mandated) that you do so responsibly and in a way that maximizes the utility of both the people and the government.

The United Nations has the inherent right to dictate the tax policy of its member nations, a right it chooses not to exercise because those who cast a majority of its votes feel this way. This resolution has no real power, because if the aforementioned majority were to change its mind, it would only have to repeal this resolution and then pass a resolution altering the tax policies of member nations. Since I dislike wasting the time of the United Nations, I vote against.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

The United Nations has the inherent right to dictate the tax policy of its member nations, a right it chooses not to exercise because those who cast a majority of its votes feel this way.
*snip*

Excuse me?!?

...it is encouraged (not mandated) that you do so responsibly and in a way that maximizes the utility of both the people and the government.

Why the need for this encouragement? It is the contention of the people of Moldavistan that such encouragement is superfluous, and puts us all on a slippery slope. If it is indeed the intention of the proposing member to merely enshrine the right of all members sovereignty over their domestic taxation policy, then this proposed resolution should have been written with that intent, and that intent alone. Instead it has been qualified with the proposing members own moral yardstick.

The people of Moldavistan will not be hoodwinked by what is clearly a hidden agenda, and nor should the other distinguished members of this body.

Jamil Fareshta Rukhshana
Peoples Representative of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan, UN

Originally Posted by Goobergunchia
The United Nations has the inherent right to dictate the tax policy of its member nations
Wait, when did this happen? It is many government's beliefs that the United Nations has absolutely no right to dictate policy outside of international relations, aside from ensuring a handful of basic rights to member citizens. The vast majority, I'm sure, would certainly disagree with you that the UN has inherent rights of any sort when it comes to determining member nations' internal policy. Exactly what does the government of Goobergunchia think that "national sovereignty" means?

Wait, when did this happen? It is many government's beliefs that the United Nations has absolutely no right to dictate policy outside of international relations, aside from ensuring a handful of basic rights to member citizens. The vast majority, I'm sure, would certainly disagree with you that the UN has inherent rights of any sort when it comes to determining member nations' internal policy. Exactly what does the government of Goobergunchia think that "national sovereignty" means?

Agreed. This is absolute nonsense. The UN has become a farce at best, an Orwellian nightmare at worst. The people of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan recognize the need to reign in this monster.

Jamil Fareshta Rukhshana
Peoples Representative of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan, UN

Arguably national sovereignty means nothing.


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.

Thus if we the UN pass a law to make the UN meddle in taxes, the UN meddles in taxes. The UN inherantly has the right to do anything it wants (with the exception of OOC rules on armies and such). By voting in general assembly we determine what the UN wants, but no claim of national sovereignty can prevent you from being subject to the will of the UN.

You only have sovereignty if the UN lets you have sovereignty. You gave your right to sovereignty up the minute you joined the UN.

And we begin to wander away from the discussion. Let us return, please, to a debate on the merits of this proposal.

While we of Demantlieu understand the point raised by our collegue from Moldavistan, we would point out that this proposal is a choice of two evils. Yes, there is a moral yardstick present in this resolution, but I would like to be shown the man - or woman, it's a new century - who can draft a proposal without including their own personal biases. In fact, it is the prime goal of submitting proposals for consideration - to shape the world at large to your vision. And this proposal very carefully does not mandate any change to the structure of your government - it suggests, granted, that all governments represent those they tax, but it does not mandate anything save the UN's continued non-interference in national taxes.

And for those nations bringing up points of national sovereignty, I would remind this body that no matter your personal feelings on the furtherment of democracy or on the UN's reach into national affairs: we are here to decide whether or not to establish a legal precident allowing the UN to direclty meddle in the organization, structure, and function of our governments. A "NO" vote on this proposal is inviting the UN to rewrite your constitution, and a "YES" vote is telling them to go bother someone else.

James Capri,
Demantlien Ambassador, UN

Originally posted by Moldavistan
Why the need for this encouragement? It is the contention of the people of Moldavistan that such encouragement is superfluous, and puts us all on a slippery slope. If it is indeed the intention of the proposing member to merely enshrine the right of all members sovereignty over their domestic taxation policy, then this proposed resolution should have been written with that intent, and that intent alone. Instead it has been qualified with the proposing members own moral yardstick.


Granted perhaps that the encouragement was a bit superflous. However, the rest of the proposal is indeed good and the only thing it mandates is sovereignty over domestic taxation policy on the national level at the most. It would be a mistake to dismiss the entire proposal over one article that may OR may not lead to a slippery slope in enforcing what you believe to be "the UN's view" of "morality" over the member nations.

It seems that your dismissal is based on speculation. If it turns out to be the slippery slope that your nation believes, you can be sure that our nation and many other nations at that would fight it with every ounce of our being.

Signed,
Hakim Zilativ
Ambassador General, the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Originally Posted by The Frozen Chosen
Arguably national sovereignty means nothing.

Thus if we the UN pass a law to make the UN meddle in taxes, the UN meddles in taxes. The UN inherantly [sic] has the right to do anything it wants (with the exception of OOC rules on armies and such). By voting in general assembly we determine what the UN wants, but no claim of national sovereignty can prevent you from being subject to the will of the UN.

You only have sovereignty if the UN lets you have sovereignty. You gave your right to sovereignty up the minute you joined the UN.
This old fallacy again. From a game mechanics standpoint, yes, compliance is an absolute thing. However, nowhere in Article 11 does the UN get a carte blanche to legislate wherever it desires. Article simply states that whatever the UN can and does pass legislation on must be followed by member nations.


Furthermore, the other point raised by Goobergunchia,
Originally Posted by Goobergunchia
This resolution has no real power, because if the aforementioned majority were to change its mind, it would only have to repeal this resolution and then pass a resolution altering the tax policies of member nations. Since I dislike wasting the time of the United Nations, I vote against.
seems tosuggest that this resolution is worthless, because it could be repealed with a change of opinion. Our government would like to know how this is different from any other UN resolution on the books. If the majority of UN opinion turned to support slavery, Resolution 6 could be repealed, and a new resolution protecting enslavement could be passed. We feel that an argument such as this suggests that the UN should vote against this resolution because the UN should never passing anything, as all of it could be repealed later.

Ah, but if resolution 6 was repealed, it would still have prohibited slavery for nearly three years. There is a clear difference between a resolution that sets forth legislation upon the United Nations member body and a resolution that instead binds the United Nations organization itself. The latter has no effect on the citizens of our nations, while the former does, even if for a brief period of time.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

And we begin to wander away from the discussion. Let us return, please, to a debate on the merits of this proposal.


Quite.


While we of Demantlieu understand the point raised by our collegue from Moldavistan, we would point out that this proposal is a choice of two evils. Yes, there is a moral yardstick present in this resolution, but I would like to be shown the man - or woman, it's a new century - who can draft a proposal without including their own personal biases. In fact, it is the prime goal of submitting proposals for consideration - to shape the world at large to your vision. And this proposal very carefully does not mandate any change to the structure of your government - it suggests, granted, that all governments represent those they tax, but it does not mandate anything save the UN's continued non-interference in national taxes.


But it does strongly suggest that every leader of every member nation let her people have a say in how the taxes are used. Firstly - this is a nightmare to comprehend if you are the sole leader of your nation (like me, for example), and secondly, even in a democracy, the people do not get to pick and chose what the taxes are spent on - it would be a disaster. Imagine if no one wanted to support the army? Would it have to be disbanded?


And for those nations bringing up points of national sovereignty, I would remind this body that no matter your personal feelings on the furtherment of democracy or on the UN's reach into national affairs: we are here to decide whether or not to establish a legal precident allowing the UN to direclty meddle in the organization, structure, and function of our governments. A "NO" vote on this proposal is inviting the UN to rewrite your constitution, and a "YES" vote is telling them to go bother someone else.


I am quite happy for the UN to rewrite my laws, however if they get to the point where they are redesiging my entire notion of government - if they are requiring me to hand over my Duty of Governance to the people, then they have gone a step too far. So - I am voting no.

It seems that your dismissal is based on speculation. If it turns out to be the slippery slope that your nation believes, you can be sure that our nation and many other nations at that would fight it with every ounce of our being.


But would you agree that it is easier to stop a bolder from rolling down a slope at the top, rather than the middle, of the hill?

If this was just a request/mandate for the UN not to meddle in my tax, it would not be an issue. But it can be seen as a request for me to let my people decide how their taxes are spent. Which is a tad unnacceptable.

After studying this resolution, We have come to the conclusion that it does absolutely nothing. Since it appears to have no effect, what is the point of bringing it up for debate?

But would you agree that it is easier to stop a bolder from rolling down a slope at the top, rather than the middle, of the hill?

If this was just a request/mandate for the UN not to meddle in my tax, it would not be an issue. But it can be seen as a request for me to let my people decide how their taxes are spent. Which is a tad unnacceptable.

Thats just it. It only kisses your hand and asks nicely. You can always do with this resolution what I intend to. Put it on the books as law, as we have to do with all UN legislation, then forget about it. Not one word from this will be implemented in our nation. We don't have to, so we won't.

Thats the only good thing about this sort of useless nat sov legislation. While I see it as a big waste of time because it doesn't actually act to improve nations ect and its only aim is to cut the hands off future proposal writers, it also is very very ignorable.

I think that this sought of resolution can bve quite important in forming an un-codified UN constitution. Shame that no-one has thought of just doing a codified UN constitution, sought of

FORBIDS the UN from interfering with Nation's tax systems, and from taxing citizens of any UN nation directly

FORBIDS the UN from banning the use of Nuclear Weapons

etc etc...

I think that this sought of resolution can bve quite important in forming an un-codified UN constitution. Shame that no-one has thought of just doing a codified UN constitution, sought of

FORBIDS the UN from interfering with Nation's tax systems, and from taxing citizens of any UN nation directly

FORBIDS the UN from banning the use of Nuclear Weapons

etc etc...
Such a concept would be illegal, as it would by necessity cover several categories.

I would put the whole thing as Furtherment of Democracy, as it mandates a certain amount of nat sov.

That said, it would still be illegal as all the un-codified "Constitution" resolutions would have to be repealed, or it would end up covering it or be a house of cards thingy

I think that this sought of resolution can bve quite important in forming an un-codified UN constitution. Shame that no-one has thought of just doing a codified UN constitution, sought of

FORBIDS the UN from interfering with Nation's tax systems, and from taxing citizens of any UN nation directly

FORBIDS the UN from banning the use of Nuclear Weapons

etc etc...

But therein lies the problem - what else are you going to forbid? And once you have forbidden all this, what else can the UN vote on? It would pretty much tie the hands of the member nations forever, cause there will be a very limited amount on which they can propose resolutions.

That's not a bad thing.

That's not a bad thing.

In terms of National Government, maybe not. But in terms of how fun the game is - it would be a disaster.

In terms of National Government, maybe not. But in terms of how fun the game is - it would be a disaster.
I'm doubting it.

I mean, people turned to the "the sky is falling!"/"the game will cease to be fun!" argument when repeals came about, and they were disastrously wrong. I doubt that would drastically make the game any less fun, either. Different perhaps, but not "less" fun, not disastrously so.

Why can't the UN be representiative? If a nation votes for their UN ambassador in an election rather than through a government appointment, wouldn't that ambassador then be acting as a representiative that could under this resolution pprove a tax? How is an elected ambassador any different than an elected senator? And its already been stated on tn this thread that senators etc are acceptable forms of representation.
Yes, the ambassador whom they elect or how a nation votes in the UN would be representative. But that's not the same as the UN repreesnting a nation's citizens.

Let's say, that the average size of a UN nation is 600 million. "Mynation" has 600 million. The resoluton at vote is about whether or not schools should have juice for lunch. Let's say there are 30,000 other UN nations besides "Mynation". Let' remember that the people of "Mynation" get one vote, and lets just disregard the fact that delegates get more than one vote (because that makes the math incredibly complicated).

In this case, the 600 million of "Mynation" weild 3.33 X 10-5 of the say in whether the resolution passes, though they are effected by 100% of the effects of the resolution (since the UN will force all the school lunchrooms in "Myntion").

So in the end, what goes on in Mynation's school lunchrooms is not determined by the 600 million people in the nation whom the resolution effects, but rather the 18 trillion citizens in other member nations who do not have to face the ramifications of changes in "Mynation". In fact, they likely are ignorant of "Mynation"'s existence, much less are they versed in the national siatuation of lunchroom beverages.

I don' think that's representative. I don't think that's democracy. I think National issues, and the nations effected are done a severe disservice when dealt with on the UN level.


More importantly, if your entire purpose is to protect citizens of member nations from taxation by the UN, that's already covered by the UN Taxation Ban UNR#4.
That's not the purpose. The purpose is to protect UN nations from undemocratic meddling in national texation policies by the UN.

For the first time in a very long time, the PDSRA has cast its vote against a proposal. While we applaud the general principle, we feel the final paragraph has no place in this resolution, and that it is an attempt to coerce governments out of legitimate taxation policies necessary to fund, for example, social programmes. The wording of §5 is highly objectionable.

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
ambassador of the PDSRA to the United Nations

Granted perhaps that the encouragement was a bit superflous.I find I have to agree with him. While this proposal is an arguement against too much UN interference, and an arguement in defence of National Sovereignty, it does more or less explicitly call for all governments to become democratic, to one degree or another.

And as such I have to change my vote from for, to against.For the first time in a very long time, the PDSRA has cast its vote against a proposal. While we applaud the general principle, we feel the final paragraph has no place in this resolution, and that it is an attempt to coerce governments out of legitimate taxation policies necessary to fund, for example, social programmes. The wording of §5 is highly objectionable.

Ah, but Article 5 is the principle of the text. The text isn't about not allowing the UN to meddle in national tax policies, it's about securing representation in taxation. Disallowing an unrepresentative international body from deciding these national issues is the first step in this, but it is certainly not the last. Article 5 is a tribute to the changes each nation can make to responsibly collect taxes from its citizens--something I think is a very admirable thing for a nation to do.

Ah, but who is to define what is "responsible"? We in Ariddia lay significant emphasis upon responsible social policies. No doubt our sense of responsability is viewed by many capitalist nations as irresponsible. Whereas we view the capitalist handling of taxation issues as essentially irresponsible in a number of ways.

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
ambassador of the PDSRA to the United Nations

Ah, but who is to define what is "responsible"? We in Ariddia lay significant emphasis upon responsible social policies. No doubt our sense of responsability is viewed by many capitalist nations as irresponsible. Whereas we view the capitalist handling of taxation issues as essentially irresponsible in a number of ways.
Granted, but I don't think this proposed text either supports or denounces socialist/capitalist methods of taxation, just that "responsibility" (which I certainly didn't want to try define in this proposal) is used.

Granted, but I don't think this proposed text either supports or denounces socialist/capitalist methods of taxation, just that "responsibility" (which I certainly didn't want to try define in this proposal) is used.

Well - we ensure everyone pays who should, and that we spend the money where I think it is best spent. And since we can't let the citizens collect taxes from each other, I am responsible for collecting taxes.

I am really confused as to what the last part does now!!

Ah, but Article 5 is the principle of the text. The text isn't about not allowing the UN to meddle in national tax policies, it's about securing representation in taxation. Disallowing an unrepresentative international body from deciding these national issues is the first step in this, but it is certainly not the last. Article 5 is a tribute to the changes each nation can make to responsibly collect taxes from its citizens--something I think is a very admirable thing for a nation to do.

And so we have it, the beast is unveiled. These are clearly issues of national sovereignty. The people of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan will not abide this moralistic crusade to democratize the globe in the author's own image. It is clear what must be done.

Jamil Fareshta Rukhshana
Peoples Representative of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan, UN

His Royal Highness' Government and Privy Council, being in agreement that the current proposal is too restrictive in dealing with multi-national corporations, in that the proposal gives such entities exemption to taxation, has advised His Royal Highness to vote against the proposal.

Lord Raglan,
Chief Clerk of the Privy Council,
Principality of The Gulf Islands

His Royal Highness' Government and Privy Council, being in agreement that the current proposal is too restrictive in dealing with multi-national corporations, in that the proposal gives such entities exemption to taxation, has advised His Royal Highness to vote against the proposal.

Lord Raglan,
Chief Clerk of the Privy Council,
Principality of The Gulf Islands

Ok - I have to ask how you came to this conclusion, because it would seem that the tax laws are being left to the various nations, so that the corporations you mention might be exempted, but might not - it is up to you and your government.

And so we have it, the beast is unveiled. These are clearly issues of national sovereignty. The people of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan will not abide this moralistic crusade to democratize the globe in the author's own image. It is clear what must be done.

Jamil Fareshta Rukhshana
Peoples Representative of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan, UN

Would you rather have it done in my image? Yours? Let's not allow ourselves to be distracted by the fact that the author's views underpin the resolution. The author's views always underpin a resolution; it can be taken for granted. Perhaps you should instead attempt to show that democratizing the "globe" in the manner described by the proposal is inappropriate. Good luck.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Perhaps you should instead attempt to show that democratizing the "globe" in the manner described by the proposal is inappropriate. Good luck.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Of course it is inappropriate, more so in the context of this body. Free implementation of taxation policy should be a sovereign right of all members. Article 3 of this proposed resolution seems to enshrine that right. Article 5 is thus a contradiction of article 3, in that it interferes with a members sovereign right to manage its own taxation policy, free from foreign meddling.

Your particular choice of governance is your own, Mr. Jones. The people of Moldavistan would never presume to dictate your or any other members political system. We expect that same courtesy in return.

So, my fellow members, we strongly urge a vote of nay on this proposal. Article 3 of this proposed resolution would make a fine resolution in its own right. Article 3, however, is not the authors intent, by his own admission. The aim of this article is to actually allow for the UN to dictate the taxation policy of its member nations according to its own concept of fair, representative taxation. Do not be fooled by any claims to the contrary. This is UN nation building, pure and simple.

Jamil Fareshta Rukhshana
Peoples Representative of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan, UN

Of course it is inappropriate, more so in the context of this body. Free implementation of taxation policy should be a sovereign right of all members. Article 3 of this proposed resolution seems to enshrine that right. Article 5 is thus a contradiction of article 3, in that it interferes with a members sovereign right to manage its own taxation policy, free from foreign meddling.

It does? I never realized that. And after reading it for the third time, I still cannot find any interference. All I find is an urging of member nations to use their right responsibly, which is hardly interference any more than it would be interference to tell someone that it's their right to own a cheese grater and urge them to use it responsibly.

Your particular choice of governance is your own, Mr. Jones. The people of Moldavistan would never presume to dictate your or any other members political system. We expect that same courtesy in return.

You already have it. I have gone so far as to dedicate myself to the promotion of the right to self-determination of every nation in the United Nations.

So, my fellow members, we strongly urge a vote of nay on this proposal. Article 3 of this proposed resolution would make a fine resolution in its own right. Article 3, however, is not the authors intent, by his own admission. The aim of this article is to actually allow for the UN to dictate the taxation policy of its member nations according to its own concept of fair, representative taxation. Do not be fooled by any claims to the contrary. This is UN nation building, pure and simple.

Jamil Fareshta Rukhshana
Peoples Representative of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan, UN

Nation building? Hardly. You'll have to look through the list of past resolutions to find out what nation building looks like. It looks like huge mandated education, healthcare, and environmental programs. It looks like many resolutions that declare that all sorts of interesting things are "rights" of all humans. It looks like micromanagement of business law and educational practices.

You're complaining about a nonexistent grain of sand when you're standing on a massive sandy beach.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Gentlemen, I applaud your vigor and vitrol in defending and opposing this resolution. For the record, I happen to agree with the points of view expressed by my collegue of Texan Hotroders, Minister Jones. However, before we wander away from the topic - yet again - I would ask that all parties carefully and considerately re-read the proposed legislation, word for word.

As you're reading, I'll continue, if you don't mind ... yes, thank you.

As we read, we find many things - definitions, a bit of history, and then we get to the part about what the UN shall actually do about these definitions and history: we shall declare as invoilable the right of all member nations to tax their people however they please. That alone is worth our "YES" votes. But should we read further, we find the disputed Article 5 - which urges nations to adopt a democratic, representative taxation system. I point out that it URGES. This is not part of the mandated section, nor is the right of a taxed citizen base to be represented in government in the declarations section. This proposal seeks, yes, to bend the world toward democracy - Well, sirs and madames, what is the problem with that? We have seen in these chambers dozens and dozens of resolutions seeking to increase democratic freedoms - one of which was passed last week! I am especially baffled by the statements of "it interferes with our way of government." from nations that claim to be democratic.

This proposal cannot force you to make any changes to your way of life or your accustomed style of government. What it _DOES_ do is prevent the UN from telling you how and when and where to tax. Whatever quarrels a nation may have with article 5, it's impact is negligible compared to the overwhelming good that will come of preventing the UN from meddling - especially since defeating this resolution will set the precident that the UN may micromanage our governments, an alternative that is simply unacceptable, no matter your standpoint on national sovereignty or democratic ideals.

Ladies and Gentlemen, ignore the ramblings of those who do not see the bigger picture here. Our collective approval of this legislation will INCREASE the national sovereignty that we so cherish - and all we have to do is vote "YES".

James Capri,
Demantlien Ambassador, UN

Whatever quarrels a nation may have with article 5, it's impact is negligible compared to the overwhelming good that will come of preventing the UN from meddling - especially since defeating this resolution will set the precident that the UN may micromanage our governments, an alternative that is simply unacceptable, no matter your standpoint on national sovereignty or democratic ideals.


And yet our history, and the history of other nations, will show that things that are considered "negligible" can be the thin end of the wedge, and are sometimes known to lead to things a lot bigger and badder.

Further more, not supporting this resolution does not mean any precedents are set. Voting for this, however, does set a precedent that the people of the UN support the idea of democratic government above all others. Which is a dangerous precedent to set.


Ladies and Gentlemen, ignore the ramblings of those who do not see the bigger picture here. Our collective approval of this legislation will INCREASE the national sovereignty that we so cherish - and all we have to do is vote "YES".


I see the bigger picture, and it's one that disturbs me a little.

From a game mechanics standpoint, yes, compliance is an absolute thing. However, nowhere in Article 11 does the UN get a carte blanche to legislate wherever it desires. Article simply states that whatever the UN can and does pass legislation on must be followed by member nations.

(Other than the restrictions in the game rules in place for the sake of mechanics) How do you figure that the UN doesn't have carte banche to to legislate anything it (i.e. the member nations) want?

I don' think that's representative. I don't think that's democracy. I think National issues, and the nations effected are done a severe disservice when dealt with on the UN level.
I think that it's a matter of perspective on what constitutes representation. Regardless of the size of the voting body there will always be the possiblity that someone gets the short end of the deal. The democratic legislature of MyNation could vote to tax the income of people with 6 toes at twice the rate of everyone else. The districts with no 6-toed constitutents will not be affected. Obviously the policy does 6-toed individuals a disservice, but is it not still democracy?

That's not the purpose. The purpose is to protect UN nations from undemocratic meddling in national texation policies by the UN.
The UN is by it's nature a representiative democracy, albeit a huge one. All of its policies are set by a democratic vote. Thus it categorically can't meddle undemocratically.


Further more, not supporting this resolution does not mean any precedents are set. Voting for this, however, does set a precedent that the people of the UN support the idea of democratic government above all others.
Agreed. This proposal basically appears to say "we won't tell you how to tax because that would be wrong, but please do it this way cause it better." It's a very mixed message.

P.S. The Community currently plans to abstain on this one.

And yet our history, and the history of other nations, will show that things that are considered "negligible" can be the thin end of the wedge, and are sometimes known to lead to things a lot bigger and badder.

Further more, not supporting this resolution does not mean any precedents are set. Voting for this, however, does set a precedent that the people of the UN support the idea of democratic government above all others. Which is a dangerous precedent to set.

I see the bigger picture, and it's one that disturbs me a little.

Well spoken, Madame! Unfortunately, while excellently spoken - and it was, have no doubt - I cannot agree. If I may be so bold, the precident has already been set that the UN prefers democratic government above all others. Madame, you are engaging in democratic government as we speak by your membership in the UN - itself a democratic instution - and debating this proposal. Democracy is the flavour of our times - we surround ourselves with it. This proposal merely urges that we give a moment's thought to letting it within our borders. While that may upset many, it is also as I said before only an urging, not a mandate.

Voting on this proposal ends tomorrow. Vote for our freedom to govern ourselves, without outside interference. Vote "YES".

James Capri
Demantlien Ambassador, UN

I find some terms in this resolution to be far to vague, what defines the extent of the people's consent? If the people choose to create a government which will not be elected, nor which will provide for any future consent to be determined, can that government tax its subjects?

Also, if a majority of the people of a nation consent for the passage of some tax, but some do not, is that tax still applied to those nations?

Furthermore, the resolution STRONGLY SUGGESTS for the "highest degree of representation of citizens in taxation", so then, what is that highest way? Republican democracy? Absolutist democracy? Certainiatly a form of democracy. Therefore this resolution, while not requiring any form of government, is STRONGLY SUGGESTING for the institution of democracy with respect to taxation in all UN member states, coming very close to banning other governments, failing only at the fact that it fails, in the end, to actually do anything. That also means that this resolution was improperly catagorized, and should have gone under "The Furtherment of Democracy".

In the end, while this resolution is just providing advice to member states, we must vote against it because of these aforementioned failures, and I urge other nations to also move to vote against this resolution, espically if they be nations which lack a strong degree of democracy in their taxation systems.

(Other than the restrictions in the game rules in place for the sake of mechanics) How do you figure that the UN doesn't have carte banche to to legislate anything it (i.e. the member nations) want?
From the same resolution:
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.
OOC: Of course, this only is the case because the UN body voted for this resolution. I understand that such support of any sort of national soverignity could be repealed at any time. We are arguing over whether national soverignity only exists because of support from the UN body. The way I see it, you are most certainly right. National soverignity can only exist so long as we as a group desire it to exist.

The problem I have with that is that this really, to some extent, can be applied to pretty much any political freedom. The validity of non-concrete, amoral concepts such as national soverignity depends a good deal on 1) the amount of people who see it as valid and 2) the amount of force with which its supporters can bring to bear against those who disagree with it. National Soverignity is an accepted concept in the NSUN because there are people out there with rational reasons to believe it so.

There are plenty of acceptable arguments as to why the UN should be allowed more control over national governments. However, some of the people who support these arguements seem to believe that the validity of their stance automatically nullifies all other opinions. The UN, while to some degree a tyranny of the majority, is not simply a game in which resolution authors rush to cater legislation to +51% of member nations' liking. It has been seen countless times that many believe that the NSUN has some sort of higher purpose. Resolutions such as this one set boundaries for the UN, in a way refining what its goals should be. The the UN should not be solely defined by what it can do and not include what it cannot. The best governmental bodies all have at least a few provisions that explicitly limit their own grasp. The NSUN will certainly not suffer to do likewise.

-snip-
That I can most certainly agree to.

Given the quality of the arguements on both sides, the Community of the Frozen Chosen has officially decided to abstian from voting on this resolution. While we see the value of limiting the power of the UN to meddle in a nation's tax policy, we are also concerned by the implications of so strongly favoring a specific ideology in setting tax policy. Also, specifically, the issue of what constitutes proper consent, as raised by Lebensland, and the associated ambiguity of intent and ramifications is troublesome.

Thank you, fellow delegates, for the interesting discussion. May we continue to seek that "higher purpose" of te NSUN together.

Mark Heln
UN Ambassador

The UN is by it's nature a representiative democracy, albeit a huge one. All of its policies are set by a democratic vote. Thus it categorically can't meddle undemocratically.I do believe it's representative of nations, but not of citizens. It's like in the US, if each person who voted were representing 600 million, er, bacteria that lived on his or her body. The US democracy might represent the individual, but it is not very representative of the individual bacteria.


Agreed. This proposal basically appears to say "we won't tell you how to tax because that would be wrong, but please do it this way cause it better." It's a very mixed message.
I see it more as "we won't tell you how to tax because that would be wrong, but please decide how you're going to tax with the consent of your citizens". National Systems of Tax, the old resolution this is meant to replace, is designed much like "we won't tell you how to tax, but here are the ways we feel you should tax". Here I'm just encouraging nations to "decide how they tax" in a certain way, rather than encouraging them to tax a certain way.

I mean, its kind of like saying "buy whatever car you want, but please use the 'bluebook' so you know what you're getting"

And so we have it, the beast is unveiled. These are clearly issues of national sovereignty. The people of the Democratic Republic of Moldavistan will not abide this moralistic crusade to democratize the globe in the author's own image. It is clear what must be done.
Actually, I think it's pretty obvious that the UN establishment is pro-democracy. I, as part of that establishment, think that's the ideal situation: that the citizens have a say in taxation. However, as a member of the establishemnt who respects dissenting viewpoints, I make it only a "firmly encourage" clause, which means your nation has more options in noncompliance.

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote AGAINST the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

Is it me, or do people (nations) just not give a damn any more? this was a tiny number of people voting. And it has been going down resolution by resolution.

Are people bored with the UN?

(I admit, this is based on the past three votes, and while three dots can make a pattern, it might not be the best basis to start on)

lets be honest here.

all the debates i've been involved since i got here (only a few weeks ago) have had a 50% turnout at best.

in other words half the NSUN isn't voting for one reason or another.

you can't force a delegate to vote this begs a major question. Why is this so?

Love and esterel congratulates Powerhungry Chipmunks for the success of Representation in Taxation which upholds UN commitment to democracy.

Is it me, or do people (nations) just not give a damn any more? this was a tiny number of people voting. And it has been going down resolution by resolution.

Are people bored with the UN?

(I admit, this is based on the past three votes, and while three dots can make a pattern, it might not be the best basis to start on)


Yes the numbers of "votes" for the last 2 resolutions is down:
12999 for Representation in Taxation
12437 for Diplomatic Immunity

It seems to me that previous resolutions got around 13 500-15 000
We will watch the futur trend

I am a new member and look forward to participating fully. How many endorsements do I need in order to be able to vote on U.N. proposals?

you don't need any endorsements to vote but if you have two you can submit proposals and repeals.

the delegate with the highest number of endorsements from their region can also add their approval to a proposal or appeal.

a regional delegates vote counts as the number of endorsements they have as well so the more people that support you the more votes you will have

Yes the numbers of "votes" for the last 2 resolutions is down:
12999 for Representation in Taxation
12437 for Diplomatic Immunity

It seems to me that previous resolutions got around 13 500-15 000
We will watch the futur trend
I'm thinking that the number of nations playing is down. I know at least that the number of delegates is down, when I got Nuclear Armaments to quorum I needed 147 approvals, the number currently needed is now 128 (127 if you count WZ Forums :D).

I'm thinking that the number of nations playing is down. I know at least that the number of delegates is down, when I got Nuclear Armaments to quorum I needed 147 approvals, the number currently needed is now 128 (127 if you count WZ Forums :D).

That would explain it :}

So - are regions just collapsing? Or is the actual amount of nations falling?

I'm thinking that the number of nations playing is down. I know at least that the number of delegates is down, when I got Nuclear Armaments to quorum I needed 147 approvals, the number currently needed is now 128 (127 if you count WZ Forums :D).

Flibbleites, don't worry, it's not your fault:D

The number of UN member is 30,799, if i remember, early august when i arrive it was around 31 500 and at the same time 136 approvals were needed

112,400 nations in 14,420 regions in the worl today, but i have no references about these numbers, does someone have some?

That would explain it :}

So - are regions just collapsing? Or is the actual amount of nations falling?
The numbers should begin rising fairly soon, and peak around May or June. We just have to wait for all the school kids currently playing to tell their friends about the game, and so on and so forth.

OOC: No...anarchy would be awful. Who would want to live in a place where you can make your own choices and be held responsible for those choices by the other folks in your community rather than an overbearing and oppressive government?;)

Exactly. The people need us.

Exactly. The people need us.

Don't understand sarcasm when you see it, eh?