NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear colleagues,

we want to protect the individual freedom of people - also when it comes to state expropiation.
We have therefore drafted this proposal and want to get your comments and recommendations before we post a proposal on that matter

Regards

President Smith

Protection of freedom


APPALED by the fact, that some nations take away property of their citizens without giving them any compensation,

REALISING that individual freedom also requires security and freedom of fear to loose everything,

STATING that a binding resolution is needed to protect the citizens from this form of state tyranny.

Article 1:
The right of private property is to be protected

Article 2:
A expropriation is only allowed when it it is giving the proprietor a reasonable compensation.

OOC: Methinks someone's still a bit rankled about the Kelo decision...

Cluichstan,

I´m unaware of the Kelo decision. What is that???

@all,

any recommendations or comments about the proposal????

Cluichstan,any recommendations or comments about the proposal????

I have a question.

Won't forcing nations to recognise property rights go against a basic principal of communist and socialist type nations?

If so, won't that in effect ban those nation types from the UN?

I have a question.

Won't forcing nations to recognise property rights go against a basic principal of communist and socialist type nations?

If so, won't that in effect ban those nation types from the UN?

Heck, this resolution goes against most modern forms of property rights for a number of scenarios (yes, the norm isn't violated, but lots of fairly common exceptions are).

Heck, this resolution goes against most modern forms of property rights for a number of scenarios (yes, the norm isn't violated, but lots of fairly common exceptions are).

I understand that.

What I was fishing for with my questions is the author's answer, which would surely have to be yes to both, because in that case the proposal is illegal (in my opinion) under..

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, christians, atheist, or any other political, religous, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's descretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

I have a question.
Won't forcing nations to recognise property rights go against a basic principal of communist and socialist type nations?
If so, won't that in effect ban those nation types from the UN?

No it won´t. After all: Nations can take away land, machines, factories, e.g. from their citizens (nationalisation). But they have to compensate the owners for their loses financially.

Therefore this resolution is economicly neutral: it doesn´t force any economic system on the UN members (therefore we restraint from defining under which conditions private property can be expropriated).
That is up to the sovereign nation state to decide.
But we want to make shure that those who have to hand over their property to the state get a reasonable compensation.
The word resaonable leaves room for interpretation. That even more allows differences from country to country.
However: expropriation without compensation or with a ridiculous compensation needs to be banned. And that is the aim of this resolution.

We are open for any suggestions for changes in the wording of the resolution.

There is already a right to property under UN law...I can't remember where, though. I would not support a right to private property, even though I regard it as a 'fundamental human right' if ever there was one - I'm not interested in forcing my beliefs on other nations.

No it won´t. After all: Nations can take away land, machines, factories, e.g. from their citizens (nationalisation). But they have to compensate the owners for their loses financially.

Therefore this resolution is economicly neutral: it doesn´t force any economic system on the UN members (therefore we restraint from defining under which conditions private property can be expropriated).
That is up to the sovereign nation state to decide.
But we want to make shure that those who have to hand over their property to the state get a reasonable compensation.
The word resaonable leaves room for interpretation. That even more allows differences from country to country.
However: expropriation without compensation or with a ridiculous compensation needs to be banned. And that is the aim of this resolution.

We are open for any suggestions for changes in the wording of the resolution.


Our nation is socialist. We don't have property rights (except for personal items of course) and thats a major part of our national identity. This proposal would force us to recognise property rights, and therefore destroy our identity as a socialist entity.

In a way it does force an economic system on nations because nations like mine will have to start recognising, for example, an invention as belonging to the inventor, not the state as things stand now, and compensate him/her if we wanted to take that invention and make it available to the rest of the nation, or internationally. That sounds like the very beginnings of capitalism to me.

Our nation is socialist. We don't have property rights (except for personal items of course) and thats a major part of our national identity. This proposal would force us to recognise property rights, and therefore destroy our identity as a socialist entity. .
You say you do recognize private property rights on personal items. So recognizing that they exist should not be a problem. We don´t say: Ban public property.


In a way it does force an economic system on nations because nations like mine will have to start recognising, for example, an invention as belonging to the inventor, not the state as things stand now, and compensate him/her if we wanted to take that invention and make it available to the rest of the nation, or internationally. That sounds like the very beginnings of capitalism to me.
Well, you would have to compensate him. And that is only just, because it his personal achievement. The amount of compensation is to a huge degree in your discreation. But it has to be reasonable.

So, it is not forcing any economic system: it is only protecting the individual and his individual rights.
They can not be simply taken away. A compensation is required.

Leaving aside the acknowlegement of individual property rights (we regard land as being held in common here in Ecopoeia), what do you view as 'reasonable compensation'?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The difference is though, under our system he has no right to be taken away. With this proposal you are forcing us to give him a right and recognise that right, and compensate him if we want to take away a right he never previously had.

In Waterana, all property (except personal stuff previously mentioned) is owned by the state, ie every citizen in the nation, and that includes inventions ect. No-one has the right here to claim they own communal property. This proposal would take that away from us and set the nation on the path to selfish and greedy capitalism. At least thats the way I'm seeing the future effects of this proposal.

REALISING that individual freedom also requires security and freedom of fear to loose everything,
"Freedom of fear to loose everything?" I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea of what you mean.

STATING that a binding resolution is needed to protect the citizens from this form of state tyranny.
I'd say that's implied by the fact that your proposal exists.
Article 1:
The right of private property is to be protectedNo provisions, no specifics, no support from me.

Article 2:
A expropriation is only allowed when it it is giving the proprietor a reasonable compensation."Reasonable" isn't defined.

All in all, I'd run the spirit of the proposal by the mods to check on Waterana's concern before fleshing this out (and it does need fleshing out). Nice idea, but we probably won't support it in any form as The-Republic has pretty socialist private property laws. Good luck though.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Besides our disdain at this proposal for its obvious lack specifics as to what punishments would be handed down or what exact rewards are to be given as compensation, The Democratic Republic of Ponderon would not support this issue as it would force an economic system upon all countries in the UN. What if the concept of personal property is completely nonexistant in the country? For that matter, what if the currency is a nonexistant concept within the country? This proposal is blantantly forcing capitalism upon the nations of the UN.

Joseph Wardell
Ambassador to the UN

I'd like to add that I find the title disingenuous. This doesn't protect 'freedom' as a general concept, merely one contentious aspect. It's hardly the all-encompassing measure the title merits.

MV

Cluichstan,

I´m unaware of the Kelo decision. What is that???

@all,

any recommendations or comments about the proposal????

OOC: Google Kelo and "US Supreme Court." It was a case regarding eminent domain that was decided in 2005.

In Waterana, all property (except personal stuff previously mentioned) is owned by the state, As the Proposal doesn't define "personal property", you wouldn't have to change anything. The only type of nation this could affect would be one where nobody owns anything, something I don't believe anybody would attempt. As long as people own something even if it's as minor as their clothing (and even if said clothing is the same for everyone and each person only has one outfit), they have personal property.

If there's an insanely commie nation out there who wants to claim that their citizens own absolutely nothing, then I'll relook at this as an ideological ban. As it is, this is just another worthless, but legal, Proposal.

Well... define 'ownership'. Individual vs common, timeframes... it's not that outlandish to imagine that nothing is perceived as being owned. Some regions of Ecopoeia, for example, maintain that all material goods are the property of the Earth.

As the Proposal doesn't define "personal property", you wouldn't have to change anything. The only type of nation this could affect would be one where nobody owns anything, something I don't believe anybody would attempt. As long as people own something even if it's as minor as their clothing (and even if said clothing is the same for everyone and each person only has one outfit), they have personal property.

If there's an insanely commie nation out there who wants to claim that their citizens own absolutely nothing, then I'll relook at this as an ideological ban. As it is, this is just another worthless, but legal, Proposal.

Ok, I understand that explaination.

If this looks like getting any kind of real support, I'll find other flaws in it for shouting down ammunition. There are plenty of them.

If this looks like getting any kind of real support, I'll find other flaws in it for shouting down ammunition. There are plenty of them.
Well, not that plenty. It's only about 5 lines long.

Ok, explain to me this:

Let's say your system is set up so the person buys the house (thus owns it), but the land it's on is rented - so long as you pay your property taxes, the renting continues as normal. What happens if one fails to pay their taxes.

Even better, do contracts signed between the owner and another party overrule the second clause? For example.....mortgages. My understanding is the person owns the house, but if they fail to make their payment, the bank evicts them based upon the agreement the two have - with no compensation. Would this law overrule such a scenario?

Well... define 'ownership'. Individual vs common, timeframes... it's not that outlandish to imagine that nothing is perceived as being owned. Some regions of Ecopoeia, for example, maintain that all material goods are the property of the Earth.That's not a matter of the government seizing all property. It's more of a religious (for lack of a better phrase) belief. This has nothing to do with that. If a person choses to give up all their posessions, this Proposal wouldn't do anything. People always have the ability to give up their rights of their own free will. Also, this is skating near DLE-land of coming up with random possibilities that exist only so someone can point to an exception.

Let's say your system is set up so the person buys the house (thus owns it), but the land it's on is rented - so long as you pay your property taxes, the renting continues as normal. What happens if one fails to pay their taxes.As per the contract, the state seizes the land, giving you one of two possibilites:

1) You own the house, they own the land. You can't go to the house because the land is theirs, and they can't build on the land because the house is yours.

2) The state seizes control of everything on the land (including your house). You remove your posessions and the portion of the house that you (not the bank) own is applied to your debt -- the equity, in other words. Since you owe the state money, you are in breech of contract and thus the state is allowed to take your property without violating the Proposal.

For example.....mortgages. My understanding is the person owns the house, but if they fail to make their payment, the bank evicts them based upon the agreement the two have - with no compensation.That's not quite how it works (at least in the US). Typically, when you enter into a mortgage agreement, you don't own the house; the bank still holds the deed. As above, the portion that you have paid towards the total cost of the house is yours, and that's how people with mortgages can take out "home equity loans". The equity is the portion owned by the person. Essentially, if you finished paying for half of the house (ignoring things like interest, mortages are complicated), and the house was worth $100,000 you would have $50,000 in equity that you could borrow against. When you are evicted for non-payment, it gets a little more complicated, but most contracts still respect the person's equity so they aren't totally screwed.

Now, there are some contracts that don't work like this (*cough*whitewater*cough*). But if a person signs away their right to their equity, it's their own fault. Also, unless the banks were nationalized, this Proposal wouldn't have an effect, as it only limits the actions of the state.

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the effect this would have on illegal goods. The way I read it, if, under this proposal, our federal agents conducted a raid and confiscated n hundred thousand thalers worth of illegal weapons or whatever, we would have to reimburse the suspects for the full street value of whatever we seized. This would probably lead to some interesting new types of crimes.

That's not a matter of the government seizing all property. It's more of a religious (for lack of a better phrase) belief. This has nothing to do with that. If a person choses to give up all their posessions, this Proposal wouldn't do anything. People always have the ability to give up their rights of their own free will. Also, this is skating near DLE-land of coming up with random possibilities that exist only so someone can point to an exception.
Fair enough re the explanation, but I'll note that the circumstances I described above have been in play pretty much from Ecopoeia's inception. I never paid much attention to DLEisms...

In Waterana, all property (except personal stuff previously mentioned) is owned by the state, ie every citizen in the nation, and that includes inventions ect. No-one has the right here to claim they own communal property. This proposal would take that away from us and set the nation on the path to selfish and greedy capitalism. At least thats the way I'm seeing the future effects of this proposal.

So, does anybody in Waterana actually bother to try inventing anything when they won't be allowed to benefit [any more than any of their fellow citizens does] from the effort?

There is already a right to property under UN law...I can't remember where, though.

It's in the anti-slavery resolution.

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the effect this would have on illegal goods. The way I read it, if, under this proposal, our federal agents conducted a raid and confiscated n hundred thousand thalers worth of illegal weapons or whatever, we would have to reimburse the suspects for the full street value of whatever we seized. This would probably lead to some interesting new types of crimes.

Good point!

(H'mm, can anybody here tell me whether any compensation was paid for the previously-legal alcohol that was destroyed in the USA at the start of Prohibition?)

So, does anybody in Waterana actually bother to try inventing anything when they won't be allowed to benefit [any more than any of their fellow citizens does] from the effort?

He gets his name all over the invention, gets full recognition as the inventer and the pleasure of knowing he has helped improve the lives of himself and/or others in the nation.

I know it may be hard for some to take this in, but not everyones world revolves around money. Our nation has 100% taxation, so in effect we are a moneyless society and what our people have never had, they don't miss. Saying an inventer wouldn't bother because he's not going to get piles of coloured paper for the effort is a bit of an insult to those that put their time and effort into inventions because they enjoy doing it, and feel rewarded enough just seeing others benefit from their work.

He gets his name all over the invention, gets full recognition as the inventer and the pleasure of knowing he has helped improve the lives of himself and/or others in the nation.

I know it may be hard for some to take this in, but not everyones world revolves around money. Our nation has 100% taxation, so in effect we are a moneyless society and what our people have never had, they don't miss. Saying an inventer wouldn't bother because he's not going to get piles of coloured paper for the effort is a bit of an insult to those that put their time and effort into inventions because they enjoy doing it, and feel rewarded enough just seeing others benefit from their work.

If that's been the case since time immemorial, and there's no significant level of contact with any other nation where more money-oriented rules apply, then it might work: If your people know that it was previously possible for inventors to profit from their ideas, however, or at least that it's possible to do so in some other nations, then -- human nature being such as it is (and assuming Waterana's inhabitants to be human... Is that the case? ;-) -- I suspect that at least some people who have what they think are good ideas will emigrate to countries where they can patent the concepts & make money from them...

If that's been the case since time immemorial, and there's no significant level of contact with any other nation where more money-oriented rules apply, then it might work: If your people know that it was previously possible for inventors to profit from their ideas, however, or at least that it's possible to do so in some other nations, then -- human nature being such as it is (and assuming Waterana's inhabitants to be human... Is that the case? ;-) -- I suspect that at least some people who have what they think are good ideas will emigrate to countries where they can patent the concepts & make money from them...

If they wish to do that, nothing is stopping them. We have open borders. In fact if any of our people feel they can't live without money, then they are free to move to other nations and accumulate all the wealth and property they are capable of getting their greedy hands on.

If they wish to do that, nothing is stopping them. We have open borders. In fact if any of our people feel they can't live without money, then they are free to move to other nations and accumulate all the wealth and property they are capable of getting their greedy hands on.

Fair enough.
(I'd bet on you getting more emigrants than immigrants, if we are talking about standard humans...)

Fair enough.
(I'd bet on you getting more emigrants than immigrants, if we are talking about standard humans...)
OOC: Same situation in Ecopoeia. Net migration over time isn't a problem so long as there's an equilibrium point.

Fair enough.
(I'd bet on you getting more emigrants than immigrants, if we are talking about standard humans...)

Waterana is populated by humans. We don't have other races living within our borders as yet, but they are welcome anytime.

We don't consider emigration a problem however. The birth rate more than makes up for those that choose to leave, for any reason.

We don't have droves of disgruntled capitalists storming out of the nation however. There are some of course, but most citizens are content with the way things are. Our nation has been socialist since its birth so the people have never known any other system.

Our children are taught in school (in much the same way RL schools used to teach my generation about communism, just reversed so captialism is the bad guy) that socialism is the best system and rampant capitalism is a corrupt system that promotes nothing but selfishness, greed, exploitation and elitism. The notion of only looking out for number one, collecting possesions and increasing a bank balance is a totally alien concept to most of our population.