DRAFT: Alcohol Tariff Reductions [Archive]

Mikitivity

14-01-2006, 05:57

Alcohol Tariff Reductions
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcohol is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcohol, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcohol, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of nations in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these nations also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcohols;

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcohol products, both domestic and non-domestic;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcohol exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

7. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

edit log:
2006.01.13 -- changed "ACKNOLWEDGES" to "ACKNOWLEDGES"

Mikitivity

14-01-2006, 06:01

Alcohol Tariff Reductions
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

This is a proposal that my government submitted (with some help from the Mikitivity beer industry) back in Sep. 2004. The text is a draft, meaning that my government is hoping to use this as a starting point for dicussions. The only sticky point we have is that my government likes "weak" languaged resolutions. We don't like forcing nations to do things, because we don't like resolutions that force our government to do things.

The basic idea is the same as any free trade agreement ... namely that by removing protectionist barriers, we can hopefully stimulate UN economies, giving us an edge against non-UN economies (whom aren't protected by this resolution). ;)

Yelda

14-01-2006, 06:41

My initial impression is HELL YES, we'll support it.

Hou Mian

14-01-2006, 07:56

Alcohol Tariff Reductions
*snip*

3. ACKNOLWEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcohol products, both domestic and non-domestic;
*snip*

The first thing is that it's spelled "acknowledges". Very minor, I know, but I want to help.

Number 2: What about banning specific types of alcohol? For example, if I think absinthe or wood alcohol (or certain chemical substances used in industry) are too dangerous, can I still ban those? Or if I prefer not to ban things entirely (because it looks bad to some), can I do tariffs on those? Particularly the non-ingestible kind?

Alcohol is a very broad term, moreso than many realize.

Overall, I like this proposal (because I like both free trade and cheap booze). I'll support it, but I want you to consider these things.

Yelda

14-01-2006, 08:09

Alcohol is a very broad term, moreso than many realize.
Good point. Mik, you do mean for this to only cover ethanol, right?

Mikitivity

14-01-2006, 08:24

The first thing is that it's spelled "acknowledges". Very minor, I know, but I want to help.

Number 2: What about banning specific types of alcohol? For example, if I think absinthe or wood alcohol (or certain chemical substances used in industry) are too dangerous, can I still ban those? Or if I prefer not to ban things entirely (because it looks bad to some), can I do tariffs on those? Particularly the non-ingestible kind?

Alcohol is a very broad term, moreso than many realize.

Overall, I like this proposal (because I like both free trade and cheap booze). I'll support it, but I want you to consider these things.

I'll go back and fix the typo ... I'm wondering why my MS Word didn't catch it -- does Word ignore words in CAPS?

I think if you wanted to ban a specific type of alcohol, then in addition to clause 3, clause 2 kicks in:

"2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol;"

The key in both clauses is "similar".

Originally I was thinking that if your nation allows beer, but not whiskey, you can't place protective tariffs on beer *and* you can not export whiskey. Basically you'd have an open beer market (no 'unfair' advantages to local companies, in return for an equal chance to compete abroad via exports), but your whiskey market wouldn't exist at all. The question is now, does clause 1 support this type of reasoning?

The bottomline is to create a level playing field for similar products, but given the religious associations with alcohol in some societies, is to give them a way to prevent their markets from being flooded with a product they don't want.

511 LaFarge

14-01-2006, 08:26

Alcohol Tariff Reductions
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcohol is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcohol, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcohol, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of nations in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these nations also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcohols;

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol;

3. ACKNOLWEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcohol products, both domestic and non-domestic;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcohol exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

7. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

This bill could be rewritten as...

Any nation where Alcohol is illegal cannot export alcohol.

That is all the bill does, mostly bull, and I don't think that I support the infringement on national sovereignty for that.

Mikitivity

14-01-2006, 08:44

This bill could be rewritten as...

Any nation where Alcohol is illegal cannot export alcohol.

That is all the bill does, mostly bull, and I don't think that I support the infringement on national sovereignty for that.

I think it does a bit more ...

Let's talk about cars instead of beer. If your country manufactures cars and exports them, but places a huge tariff on other countries' cars that are imported into your nation, is that fair to the companies not based in your country?

Proponents of free market economies will likely say this isn't fair.
Proponents of controlled / regulated economies will likely say this is necessary.

The problem is when a controlled economy tries to work the system both ways ... when it tries to export something that it won't allow in its borders. The reason my government (admittedly in the free market group) feels this is wrong, is because it weakens all of our economies for a number of reasons, including some that are important to my government such as:

1) economies of scale are reduced (prices rise, and consumer savings drop),

2) the protective tariffs themselves rarely represent the actual market costs associated with the products -- which then results in market inefficiencies (i.e. money is lost to waste, money that could have been spent elsewhere),

3) companies aren't forced to innovate / compete due to a fracturing of the market (costs don't decrease over time).

There are plenty of other reasons. And my government still understands that some nations want to close their markets ... but if they do, they shouldn't benefit from other markets that are open. So the resolution is a compromise: it completely opens markets for similar products, but then shuts out those that might want to cheat the system.

Ultimately UN resolutions aren't legally binding to non-UN members, which implies that UN members aren't required to open their markets to non-UN members. So there is still some market protection available, but it is my government's hope that there are enough UN members that together we can benefit.

The reason the proposal is for alcohol instead of all commodities, is some things tie into national defense issues. Beer and whiskey might for dwarven nations, but for the majority of our governments they are luxury items. :)

511 LaFarge

14-01-2006, 08:54

3) companies aren't forced to innovate / compete due to a fracturing of the market (costs don't decrease over time).

Not true, they are still forced to compete for foreign markets.

Also, why is it up to you, your country or the UN to dictate how another sovereign nation is to run their country? I submit that the destruction of individual nations in favor of the interests of the majority is insanity.

If the majority of countries decided that "money is evil and therefore outlawed" you would most definately feel like your right to rule as you please has been violated.

Say no to New World Order and work on bills that focus on non invasive regulations.

511 LaFarge

14-01-2006, 08:59

Ultimately UN resolutions aren't legally binding to non-UN members, which implies that UN members aren't required to open their markets to non-UN members.

That would be true if the binding clause was written,

RECOGNIZES the right of nations in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these nations also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcohols into U.N. nations;

rather than the current wording

RECOGNIZES the right of nations in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these nations also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcohols;

other nations not being in the UN wouldn't have to follow the regulation at all, whereas UN nations have to follow it as written.

If you change the wording then it would be a little better.

Mikitivity

14-01-2006, 09:06

That would be true if the binding clause was written,

RECOGNIZES the right of nations in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these nations also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcohols into U.N. nations;

other nations not being in the UN wouldn't have to follow the regulation at all, whereas UN nations have to follow it as written.

If you would like your a$$ served to you on a dish again please reply.

I'll be happy to make the above change, such that it only applies to UN members.

And I hardly see what was constructive advice on your part as a major ass whiping, kicking, or whatever else ... this is afterall a DRAFT.

511 LaFarge

14-01-2006, 09:12

I'll be happy to make the above change, such that it only applies to UN members.

And I hardly see what was constructive advice on your part as a major ass whiping, kicking, or whatever else ... this is afterall a DRAFT.

My bad, just really tired right now, I edited it as soon as I realized what I typed.

Anyway... I'm all for free trade, however I am also all for freedom. I will not sacrifice one for the other, so I cannot support this bill. However you seem to be good at this process, good luck.

Mikitivity

14-01-2006, 09:17

Not true, they are still forced to compete for foreign markets.

I think it is true. Afterall, how can companies compete in foreign markets, if all the markets lock down due to protectionism?

Let's say your country has a company called Fnord Motors, and it makes great cars. And that my country has a company called Mikitivity Motor Works, which also has great cars. To protect the MMW, my government places a prohibitive tariff on Fnord imports to Mikitivity ... Fnord has two choices, innovate so it can offer a better product to Mikitivity consumers or simply sell cars elsewhere. Fnord decides to innovate, but Mikitivity's domestic tariffs were designed to ensure sales of MMW autos ... how will my government respond?

It will probably just continue to protect MMW, either via increased Fnord tariffs or providing some sort of grant to MMW. The important thing is that MMW won't be making its decisions based solely on the market itself, but rather on the political climate in Mikitivity. It just isn't a stable situtation for MMW or Mikitivity.

Mikitivity

14-01-2006, 09:28

My bad, just really tired right now, I edited it as soon as I realized what I typed.

Anyway... I'm all for free trade, however I am also all for freedom. I will not sacrifice one for the other, so I cannot support this bill. However you seem to be good at this process, good luck.

No worries, I've been so tired many times myself -- I completely understand. I'd give you one of my Sudwerks' Spice Tremens beers if it would help -- and this is not a bribe. ;)

Oh, I suspect our governments are more alike than disalike ... the reason this proposal is focused on alcohol is it is a luxury item. Opening borders to beer sales isn't likely to compromise our government's freedoms, and the text has so many loopholes designed to protect nations that don't want alcohol flowing into their borders.

My government just thought it might be nice for the UN to spend some time working out ways to give some sectors of our economies a slight boost. But utlimately my government understands that some nations (particularly socialist societies) are based on controlled economies and will very likely oppose this resolution. I'm prepared for them to vote against this, but I still would like them to have the ability to use a few of those loopholes so that the next time our nations meet we can still do so as equals. :)

OOC: I was thinking arguing about beer *or* free trade, might honestly give players a chance to just do whatever, while still flying above the moderators no silly proposals radar.

511 LaFarge

14-01-2006, 09:36

Oh, I suspect our governments are more alike than disalike ...

I suspected the same, I tend to be libertarian-minded domestically and pro-sovereign rights foreign policy

The Most Glorious Hack

14-01-2006, 09:36

Also, why is it up to you, your country or the UN to dictate how another sovereign nation is to run their country?Because that's the entire point of the UN.

St Edmund

14-01-2006, 11:32

Alcohol -- even, more specifically, ethanol -- can be an important raw material for the chemical industry, and a fuel, as well as a luxury material. Would you care to alter this draft so that it refers specifically to alcoholic drinks?

Also, given that compliance with resolutions is supposed to be mandatory, I'd suggest inserting the word “full” before “compliance” in clause #5 & “fully” before “compliant” in clause #6…

Kirisubo

14-01-2006, 12:36

Cluichstan

14-01-2006, 15:13

We like it, so long as the alcohol in question refers to beverages. The resolution, we think, needs to be clear on this point in order to differentiate between, say, Cluichstani whiskey and ethanol.

Fonzoland

14-01-2006, 16:27

Yelda

14-01-2006, 17:31

Having looked over this draft It looks like the next step in the march to a NSUN common marketplace.

The Empire of Kirisubo has a controlled internal market and theres very little private enterprise.

First food, now alcohol. Theres even been an attempt to create an automobile free trade zone.

If this reaches quorum we will be voting against for similar reasons why we opposed the GDFA.
Yes, yes and the bolded parts are good things. You bring up an important point here though. GFDA established "the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3". Now, its primary purpose at the time of passage was to pass rulings pertaining to article 3 of GFDA. However, the way I worded it, it can also arbitrate trade disputes occuring under any future trade agreements, such as this one. All the author has to do is specify that disputes will be handled by the UNFTC.

Yelda

14-01-2006, 17:36

Again, a restrictive approach to free trade. <sigh>

This is what I would like to see:

Open markets. Abolish tariffs and production subsidies. Allow trade blocking during hostilities. Make an exception clause for weapons, drugs, and other products that might be banned in receiving nation.

:)
Patience. These things take time. Every step, no matter how small, toward open markets is a step in the right direction.

Cobdenia

14-01-2006, 19:07

Like it; although I would use the term "Pigovian taxes" instead of Tarriffs; tariffs are usually a fee paid in order to import a product, a pigovian tax is a sales tax put on a product in order to discourage it's consumption.

Still, you can have a CRC (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Medals_and_Orders_of_Cobdenia#Companion_of_The_Most_Fantabulous_Order_of_Richard_Cobden)...

Fonzoland

14-01-2006, 19:34

Like it; although I would use the term "Pigovian taxes" instead of Tarriffs; tariffs are usually a fee paid in order to import a product, a pigovian tax is a sales tax put on a product in order to discourage it's consumption.

Pigovian sales taxes do not distort competition and are not protectionist, because they apply to domestic and foreign products alike. Tariffs do distort competition, because they only apply to foreign production. In my view, the terminology is correct.

What is missing are production subsidies and tax deductions, which can be used equivalently to tariffs.

Flibbleites

14-01-2006, 19:43

I'll go back and fix the typo ... I'm wondering why my MS Word didn't catch it -- does Word ignore words in CAPS?
Yes, I had the same problem with Nuclear Armaments only no one noticed mine until it was up for vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Cobdenia

14-01-2006, 19:47

Not necessarily (a country could put a tax on imported products to discourage their consumption); but I take your point. Perhaps "extra sales tax" would be a better term.

And I agree about subsidies and tax deductions...

Mikitivity

14-01-2006, 19:52

My government appreciates all the constructive comments we've had this far, they've been excellent points. This still isn't the final copy ... there is absolutely no rush here, so please feel free to speak your mind:

Alcohol Tariff Reductions
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcohol, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcoholic beverage;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcoholic beverage, both domestic and non-domestic;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcohol beverage exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

7. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

Mikitivity

14-01-2006, 19:58

What is missing are production subsidies and tax deductions, which can be used equivalently to tariffs.

Perhaps I can rolls those into the resolution's meaning of tariff via clause 2, because that is a loophole I think undermines the current text. (Good catch.)

Yes, I had the same problem with Nuclear Armaments only no one noticed mine until it was up for vote.

My embassy will put some beer in the diplomatic bag for the Hu Mian embassy ... I guess the advice I'll now pass along is that when using word to type in mixed case and switch to CAPS for the clause keywords when entering the final draft. Who would have guessed that after all these years of using Word that something like that would have escaped our notice. :)

Hou Mian

15-01-2006, 15:56

"My embassy will put some beer in the diplomatic bag for the Hu Mian embassy"

Hou Mian graciously accepts the fine Mikitiv (Mikitivitian?) beer, and humbly responds by sending some a few bottles our national liquor, plus some bottles of both of our other two spirits. Please accept five bottles of koumiss, five bottles of baijiu and ten of huangjiu.

If you are in any need of assistance, please let us know. We live to serve.

Fu Huangdi
Khan of Fubai Tribe
Khaghan of Hou Mian

OOC: Yes, those are all real alcoholic beverages.

Palentine UN Office

15-01-2006, 20:41

Ahh, a resolution I can support! I'll drink to that!:D *pours a glass of Fine Yeldan Whiskey(TM).
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office

Palentine UN Office

15-01-2006, 20:50

Again, a restrictive approach to free trade. <sigh>

This is what I would like to see:

Open markets. Abolish tariffs and production subsidies. Allow trade blocking during hostilities. Make an exception clause for weapons, drugs, and other products that might be banned in receiving nation.

:)

So would I, as an Evil Conservative, Commie Hating, Capitalist SOB. However in these Hallowed Halls, I'll take whatever free market resolutions I can get. No fear mate, capitalism will win in the end. Here...have a cold six...err five-pack of Iron City.:D

P.S. Not bad Mikitivity.;)

Cluichstan

16-01-2006, 16:19

The people of Cluichstan like the revised proposal and would support it fully.

Love and esterel

17-01-2006, 14:34

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero support this proposal and would like to suggest to Howie Katzman, if he is interested in, to add a clause encouring/recommending national prevention/advertisement policies about alcohol dangers and abuses, in particular alcohol-related road accidents.

Cluichstan

17-01-2006, 14:42

Cluichstan

17-01-2006, 14:43

77 Camaro

17-01-2006, 17:22

Mickey Special, just back from a very profitable business trip to Yelda.

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero support this proposal and would like to suggest to Howie Katzman, if he is interested in, to add a clause encouring/recommending national prevention/advertisement policies about alcohol dangers and abuses, in particular alcohol-related road accidents.
"Man, that's BULLSHIT!"

Mr. Special chugs a pint of Fine Yeldan Ale™, smashes it over his head, climbs atop his desk and sings the 77 Camaroan National Anthem:

"Drink
Drink
Drink
Drink
Don't Think
Drive
Kill

Get drunk a lot
And work 40 hours a week
Spend half your time
Hung over, sick and weak

Make sure to tell yourself that this is cool
And make sure to tell yourself that you have no choice
And make sure to tell your friends that they drive you to it
And that you can quit anytime
That you want, anytime
You can quit
Anytime
That you want
You can quit
Anytime
You can quit
Anytime
Anytime

Drink
Drink
Drink
Drink
Don't Think
Drive
Kill

Party down, party down
Drink until you can't even see
Fill your car with your buddies
And wrap it around a tree

Make sure to tell yourself that this is cool
And make sure to tell yourself that you have no choice
And make sure to tell your friends that they drive you to it
And that you can quit anytime
That you want
You can quit
Anytime
That you want
You can quit
Anytime
That you want
You can quit
You can quit
You can quit

Make sure to tell yourself that this is cool
And make sure to tell yourself that you have no choice
And make sure to tell your friends that they drive you to it
And that you can quit anytime
That you want
Anytime
You can quit anytime
That you want
You can quit anytime
That you want
You can quit
Anytime

Drink
Drink
Drink
Drink
Don't Think
Drive
Kill

Feelin' pretty petty
Lying cold in a hospital bed
Busted car, busted head
You had a friend but now he's dead

Make sure to tell yourself that this is cool
And make sure to tell yourself that you have no choice
And make sure to tell your friends that they drive you to it
And that you can quit anytime
That you want
Anytime
You can quit anytime
That you want
You can quit anytime
That you want
You can quit
Anytime

Anytime, anytime"

<Belches, stumbles and falls off the desk>

Yelda

17-01-2006, 19:19

"Oh for God's sake stop that caterwauling!"

<hands Mr. Special a 750ml bottle of Fine Yeldan Whiskey™>

"Here! Go drink this."

<mutters> "Idiot"

Now then. While I can't endorse the manner in which my "colleague" presented his "argument", I feel that I must agree with his sentiments. The focus of the resolution should be "free Trade". Appeals to sentiment by introducing "feel good" clauses involving counseling and drunk driving prevention would seem out of place.

Cluichstan

17-01-2006, 19:40

I'd sing the Cluichstani national anthem, but I'm afraid after the first verse it gets too vulgar for this austere body.

Went to a party
I danced all night
I drank 16 beers
And I started up a fight

Palentine UN Office

18-01-2006, 03:17

I'd sing the Cluichstani national anthem, but I'm afraid after the first verse it gets too vulgar for this austere body.

Went to a party
I danced all night
I drank 16 beers
And I started up a fight

:eek:

Fonzoland

18-01-2006, 03:20

Palentine UN Office

18-01-2006, 03:26

I'm almost inspired enough to sing the "Beer, Beer, Beer" song.:D

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

P.S. The Lord Bless Charlie Mops, the man who invented a drink, and flavored it with hops.:D

Cluichstan

18-01-2006, 13:33

Heh. Cluich is too drunk to have phone sex. :p

Never! :p

Oh, and nice job getting the ref. :cool:

The Black New World

18-01-2006, 13:33

Heh. Cluich is too drunk to have phone sex. :p
L&E will be most disappointed...

Love and esterel

18-01-2006, 13:52

Heh. Cluich is too drunk to have phone sex. :p
:(
L&E will be most disappointed...
indeed
Never! :p
:D
1-800-SEX-CLUICH
I'm calling....dring...

The Most Glorious Hack

18-01-2006, 14:28

I'm almost inspired enough to sing the "Beer, Beer, Beer" song.I always liked:

In Heaven there is no beer
Which is why, we drink it here
And when we are no longer here...
All our friends will be drinking all our beer!

Cobdenia

18-01-2006, 19:13

No bars in heaven? No pubs?

Sod being pious then. I'd imagine the Pergatory has at least a four ale pub.

Hell probably has a micrbrewery....

Yelda

18-01-2006, 19:20

No bars in heaven? No pubs?

Sod being pious then. I'd imagine the Pergatory has at least a four ale pub.

Hell probably has a micrbrewery....
Apparently so.
http://www.satanbeer.com/satange.html

Cluichstan

18-01-2006, 19:41

And a barley wine.

http://www.youngs.co.uk/images/products/oldnick.jpg

Love and esterel

20-01-2006, 23:13

Texan Hotrodders

20-01-2006, 23:28

Because that's the entire point of the UN.

Prove it. ;)

Mikitivity

21-01-2006, 01:48

Just to know, may I ask if this proposal includes new consuming alcohol process as AWOL (Alcohol without liquid)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_without_liquid
http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/awolusa/20178/
http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/2633/

Does someone in this forum have already tried it? I don't but I'm curious :p

That is a great question.

The next draft to come out will likely be more specific so that it applies only to alcoholic beverages, meaning I would think AWOL would be another substance ... it isn't a beverage, so legally it would fall through the cracks.

OOC: Please bear in mind, that at this point and time, there are many NS players that actually do incorporate a bit of flavour into their RP via traditional alcoholic beverages. While some players might imagine there is a large international AWOL market, it is new enough that it might be worth making into its own resolution (perhaps a recreational drug resolution -- if you feel it really is safe).

That said, since Mikitivity and a number of other nations Roleplay that we have well established alcohol markets, AWOL realistically is something of a threat to our private (or in the case of the ACA public) sectors ... and if something were to come legalizing AWOL, my government would allow it, but wouldn't be gang buster excited either (afterall, we don't want Mikitivians buying AWOL products when Sudwerks has been around for centuries ... the Miervatians in Mikitivity wouldn't be sold on the idea anyways, they are nearly as stubborn as dwarves -- it is a mountain thing). ;)

And BTW, I've not tried it. I'm a big drinker of German and Belgian brews (either made in Europe or the US), so I'm very picky about my alcohol. I'll buy six packs for $12 or even single imports that are around $5 to $8 for a bottle if I think it is good. :)

Mikitivity

21-01-2006, 01:54

OK, based on some suggestions (thank you all), here is a revised and renamed version of the proposal:

Fair Trade of Alcoholic Beverages
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

2. DEFINES a protective alcoholic beverages tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverage;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcoholic beverage, both domestic and non-domestic, bearing the condition that the exporting nation is a UN member;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs on UN members and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs on UN member imports as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

7. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

Does the 3rd clause really need to be included? I'm waivering on it, as I'd like to cut this down some.

Furthermore, I've not addressed the issue of domestic subsidies. Should governments be allowed to simply pay say a beer manufactor so it can compete better? I'm starting to think maybe we have to allow this, since the UN includes socialist economies. RL has shown that their products just don't flood foreign markets anyways.

Cluichstan

21-01-2006, 02:12

Nah, I don't think that third clause is necessary.

The Most Glorious Hack

21-01-2006, 02:41

Does someone in this forum have already tried it? I don't but I'm curious :pMeh. I might try it on a lark if I somehow found myself trendy enough to have that, but I drink because I like the taste, not just to get hammered, which seems to be the point of this.

Because that's the entire point of the UN.Prove it.Hush you filthy sovereigntist! ;)

Love and esterel

21-01-2006, 02:54

That is a great question.

The next draft to come out will likely be more specific so that it applies only to alcoholic beverages, meaning I would think AWOL would be another substance ... it isn't a beverage, so legally it would fall through the cracks.

OOC: Please bear in mind, that at this point and time, there are many NS players that actually do incorporate a bit of flavour into their RP via traditional alcoholic beverages. While some players might imagine there is a large international AWOL market, it is new enough that it might be worth making into its own resolution (perhaps a recreational drug resolution -- if you feel it really is safe).

That said, since Mikitivity and a number of other nations Roleplay that we have well established alcohol markets, AWOL realistically is something of a threat to our private (or in the case of the ACA public) sectors ... and if something were to come legalizing AWOL, my government would allow it, but wouldn't be gang buster excited either (afterall, we don't want Mikitivians buying AWOL products when Sudwerks has been around for centuries ... the Miervatians in Mikitivity wouldn't be sold on the idea anyways, they are nearly as stubborn as dwarves -- it is a mountain thing). ;)

And BTW, I've not tried it. I'm a big drinker of German and Belgian brews (either made in Europe or the US), so I'm very picky about my alcohol. I'll buy six packs for $12 or even single imports that are around $5 to $8 for a bottle if I think it is good. :)

IC:

The LAEAIS (LAE Alcohol Industry Syndicate) will demonstrate tommorow in the streets of vagator, the LAE capital. The LAEAIS is protesting againt a UN project called "Alcohol Tariff Reductions" and think this proposal is discrimative as it will not encourage free trade for inovations in the Alcohol industry, in particular about new AWOL products, where LAE alcohol industry is one of the world leader and one of the most inovative.

The editorialist of www.vagatorpost.lae, in his last political analysis, wrote that the LAE government, despite its sympathy for the LAEAIS and its disapointment on this matter, will probably try to calm down the situation and support the ATR.

OOC: My previous post was mostly for fun, no pb

PS: Mik, may i ask you if you are against a clause encouraging a little bit of prevention?, as you didn't answer me about this matter

Love and esterel

21-01-2006, 03:05

Meh. I might try it on a lark if I somehow found myself trendy enough to have that, but I drink because I like the taste, not just to get hammered, which seems to be the point of this.

I Donno, but maybe there is a sensation similar to nargeela (hookah), and then has a flavour, i really don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah
http://www.sistems.org/resimler/nargile.jpg

EDIT: whooooooooooooooooooo, I'm a Cybersheep farmer:)

Mikitivity

21-01-2006, 05:05

OOC: My previous post was mostly for fun, no pb

PS: Mik, may i ask you if you are against a clause encouraging a little bit of prevention?, as you didn't answer me about this matter

OOC: Your IC stuff is good. If this reaches the UN floor, that will actually prove to be an interesting twist and will likely introduce others not reading this proposal thread to AWOL. Though like Hack, I drink for taste ... so AWOL is right up there with many other things that I put into my "fine for others" category. Well, and a wee bit of alcohol makes some aches go away.

As for the prevention clause, while I would imagine that Hack or Fris might allow us to sneak something like that into a resolution, there are other moderators whom have burned me (issuing me a warning) for having a clause in a resolution that could have been for another category as well -- I'm gun shy around trigger happy folks. :(

Given that I *suspect* that individual is still around and monitoring what I do, I'd really prefer that anything about driving under the influence might be better somehow worked into a Recreational Drug Use: Restrict resolution. The way I'd suggest doing that is to come up with an international reason that the category should be used ... and I would think the baby step to take might involve restricting alcohol consumption for pilots. Though it would seem like common sense, when flying over international territory, do you really trust some of the other nations in NS? ;)

Mikitivity

21-01-2006, 05:11

I Donno, but maybe there is a sensation similar to nargeela (hookah), and then has a flavour, i really don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah

OOC: Yeah, and I think AWOL is a brilliant "cultural" thing for some players to integrate into their imaginary societies. It just happens that Mikitivity really is what you'd get if you took Stan Lee, moved him to Munchen or Zurich, and enrolled him in Hogwarts -- so beer (and to a lesser extent wine) are pretty important for me. But I'll back up players promoting their drug (or lack thereof) of choice. :)

Cluichstan

21-01-2006, 05:15

*snip*

Hush you filthy sovereigntist! ;)

Yup, I'm filthy, too. And I refuse to bathe. ;)

Flibbleites

21-01-2006, 05:27

Yup, I'm filthy, too. And I refuse to bathe. ;)
Even when I threaten him with my trout.

The Don Bob Flibble

Palentine UN Office

21-01-2006, 20:52

I always liked:

In Heaven there is no beer
Which is why, we drink it here
And when we are no longer here...
All our friends will be drinking all our beer!

Ah yes! Frankie Yankovic is still sadly missed.:( *reverently removes fedora and places it over heart*

Optischer

21-01-2006, 21:08

Not on your nelly, belly, jelly or anythin else, No non nonny non nor no nether no matter no no
NO

The Most Glorious Hack

21-01-2006, 21:20

Ah yes! Frankie Yankovic is still sadly missed.:( *reverently removes fedora and places it over heart*Aye. And I still remember singing that at Chicago's Oktoberfest in front of the Berghoff. Ah... memories...

[/hijack]

Optischer

22-01-2006, 18:41

Palentine UN Office

22-01-2006, 19:24

Okay. As asked by thingy mo-bobby or whatsamajiggy to state my reasons for being rightly opposed. So here they are.

Lower price of alchohol
More for your money
More people buy
Quick cash boost to economy
More people drunk
Less worker productivity
Corruption imminent
Economy worse off because of lower production
Need to spend more on rehabilitating drunks
Can't spend money on essentials
Negative tourist image
Everyone hates their country
Everyone loses

So you see. hat's my view of the whole thing. I'll support i if you tell me I'm wrong.

My dear sir, the best benifit is it supports free trade, something that us evil capitalist conservatives find very little of in these august halls. I'll support what I can get. Meanwhile heres to seeing this become a resolution.*lifts glass of Old Crow* "Cheers!"
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Non-mad Scientists

22-01-2006, 23:27

I'm provisionally in favor of this resolution as it stands - hopefully, it will reduce the cost of Guiness at my local bar.;) But then, some of the local breweries have stout that is just as good for a slightly lower price...

Mikitivity

27-01-2006, 06:53

Since discussions on the current proposal are winding down, this weekend my government plans to submit a final draft to the UN. It is our plan to then take this UN forum approved draft to other regions before telegram campaigning for the resolution, though if the first few days after being released to various regional forums yield no results, we may also submit the draft.

We did take into consideration the arguments about subsidies that could be used to give domestic alcoholic beverage manufactors an unfair advantage in some locations, however, we felt that since the proposal is a "free trade" resolution, that in the spirit of promoting increased trade, that to regulate socialized economies would be wrong (in other words, any government can do that if they want).

Hou Mian

27-01-2006, 07:09

Okay. As asked by thingy mo-bobby or whatsamajiggy to state my reasons for being rightly opposed. So here they are.

Lower price of alchohol
More for your money
More people buy
Quick cash boost to economy
More people drunk
Less worker productivity
Corruption imminent
Economy worse off because of lower production
Need to spend more on rehabilitating drunks
Can't spend money on essentials
Negative tourist image
Everyone hates their country
Everyone loses

So you see. hat's my view of the whole thing. I'll support i if you tell me I'm wrong.

HOnestly...you're wrong.

Because it doesn't say anything about excise taxes. You can still tax all the liquor you want, as long as you tax both domestic and foreign liquor at the exact same amounts. YOu could make a bottle of whiskey cost $15,000, as long as domestic and foreign whiskey cost the same amount.

You can keep the price of alcohol constant. As long as both foreign and domestic alcohol costs the same.

Anubii

27-01-2006, 14:31

Mikitivity

27-01-2006, 16:39

This is an issue for individual nations and not for the UN to decide. Why you people keep insisting to move the UN into the realm of morality laws and away from human rights and peace agreements is completly beyond me. My nation and their trade partners deal with this on an individual level, we don't need a law to force action or inaction.

And the beauty of this proposal is you can maintain your protective tariffs ... essentially choosing to not benefit from free trade and thus subjecting your economy to a similar "cold economic shoulder". The proposal only reduces the barriers between nations, it doesn't completely eliminate them. As such it will be a "mild" proposal.

Free trade isn't morality ... it is about creating economic security, which many governments such as my own consider a fundamental human right and factor in promoting international peace.

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 17:15

[Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót, the LAE vice-president, sent an email to Howie Katzman using her new AIO Card (Advanced Input Output Card)]

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/chandan/card-handheld.jpghttp://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/chandan/card-write.jpg

Dear Howie Katzman,
LAE and I personally will support your new proposal and congratulate you about it. I just wanted to reiterate LAE former suggestion to include a mild clause about prevention.

Your proposal is of course a free trade proposal, but prevention is not something which stops free trade.

In many nations, alcohol related road accidents killed many young people, and I really think your proposal is a good opportunity for the UN, to be committed on this topic, as I’m don’t think it can be the object of a stand alone resolution.

Thanks for your time
Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót
Vice-President of Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

PS: The AIO Card doesn't exist yet in RL, but it's a E-paper/E-ink project, the technology is not so far:p

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 17:26

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 17:45

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich rises from his seat, his face nearly bursting vermillion with anger, and slams his fist down on the table before him.

For the last time, this is a free-trade proposal. Preventing alcohol-related accidents has nothing to do with free trade. Every single proposal put forth by representatives in this austere body need not contain some little bit of fluff to make it all warm and fuzzy. If you want the UN to legislate on alcohol-related accidents, even though it really has no business doing so, write a separate proposal. Do not go sullying the respectable, well-written proposal in question here with such rubbish. The people of Cluichstan grow weary of speaking out time and again against these inane wastes of the UN's time and energy.

(OOC: Sorry about the bold. I just wanted to make sure it read the way I wanted it to sound. :) )

Cluichstan, there are no arguments in your post, apart the term "fluff" or "rubbish", but maybe they are arguments;)

Further more, GDFA included something wich is obviously the opposite of free trade: "the religious" concern:confused:

And GDFA also included the following sensible clause, but not related to free trade:
2. ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems;

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 17:55

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 18:03

Stop bringing up other resolutions and proposals. We're talking about the draft of Alcohol Tariff Reductions. Unless it's violating a standing resolution, then bringing up any other resolutions or proposals is a waste of time, as it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Cluichstan, my suggestion is not illegal, I just gave you some example.
If you are against the suggestion, I will be happy to read your arguments, as I don't think that "stop", "fluff" or "rubbish" are some.

Flibbleites

27-01-2006, 18:07

Cluichstan, my suggestion is not illegal, I just gave you some example.
If you are against the suggestion, I will be more happy to read your arguments, as I don't think taht "stop", "fluff" or "rubbish" are some.
While it may not be illegal, it is unnessecary for the proposal. This is categorized as a Free Trade proposal, let's keep it as one.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yelda

27-01-2006, 18:29

Yelda

27-01-2006, 18:44

Cluichstan, there are no arguments in your post, apart the term "fluff" or "rubbish", but maybe they are arguments;)

Further more, GDFA included something wich is obviously the opposite of free trade: "the religious" concern:confused:

And GDFA also included the following sensible clause, but not related to free trade:
2. ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems;
Bad analogy. That clause from GFDA would cause people, in the long run, to include a greater variety of foods in their diets, which would have a positive effect on free trade. Now, if it said: "2. ENCOURAGES all nations to educate their citizens on the dangers of food poisoning;" it would be analagous to your suggestion about alcohol related "road accidents". And why do you keep bringing up GFDA? I'm the author of the thing and I hardly ever mention it.

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 18:51

What does this have to do with anything?

And it relates to this proposal how?

Just roleplay:)

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 19:10

Bad analogy. That clause from GFDA would cause people, in the long run, to include a greater variety of foods in their diets, which would have a positive effect on free trade. Now, if it said: "2. ENCOURAGES all nations to educate their citizens on the dangers of food poisoning;" it would be analagous to your suggestion about alcohol related "road accidents".

Then, you may also consider that in the long run prevention about alcohol secure free trade. For example the RL US prohibition, in the early century, which was the opposite of free trade, was decided to fight the side effects of alcohol.
Maybe more prevention would have secured free trade in that case.

And, there was also the religious concern, how is it a free trade concern?

Anyway, as I said, LAE, will support this proposal even without it, but i really think it will be a missed opportunity.

And why do you keep bringing up GFDA? I'm the author of the thing and I hardly ever mention it.

GDFA is, correct me if I'm wrong, the only resolution about tariffs decrease, so I used it as an example of jurisprudence.

Mikitivity

27-01-2006, 19:47

Dear Howie Katzman,
LAE and I personally will support your new proposal and congratulate you about it. I just wanted to reiterate LAE former suggestion to include a mild clause about prevention.

Your proposal is of course a free trade proposal, but prevention is not something which stops free trade.

In many nations, alcohol related road accidents killed many young people, and I really think your proposal is a good opportunity for the UN, to be committed on this topic, as I’m don’t think it can be the object of a stand alone resolution.

Thanks for your time
Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót
Vice-President of Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

Vice-President Tirfinnbogadót,

Thank you for your kind words. While I suspect it would be possible to include a single clause concerning public health and safety in this draft proposal, given the statements from the Ambassadors from Anubii and Optischer against this proposal, it is my office's political advice that this proposal be as transparent as possible. In other words, I fear that if I were to accept your government's amendment (which would likely be legal) that the support from moderate governments might drop away from this proposal.

Given that this proposal has been in a draft stage for over a year (possibly making it one of the older ideas for our NS UN), I suspect that there is a very real possibility that even if the proposal were to achieve 200 UN Delegate endorsements, that it would fail on the UN floor.

Clearly conservative governments have made their political opinion clear on this issue. However, my government is still very interested in a UN resolution which calls upon airline companies to restrict pilots from consuming alcohol while piloting aircraft ... due to the fact that passengers on many commerical carriers come from a number of nations.

Howie Katzman

OOC: Technology that doesn't exist in RL is fine by me for RPing. :) Though Mikitivity is something of a "Marvel-Tech" society, meaning if Stan Lee (Marvel Comics) is happy with an idea, I tend to be. Spandex wearing superheroes and dinosaurs and the *possibility* of alien life are all fine, but I still try to keep things close enough to Modern Tech.

Mikitivity

27-01-2006, 20:25

Current Draft: 2006.01.27

Fair Trade of Alcoholic Beverages
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

2. DEFINES a protective alcoholic beverages tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverage;

3. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs on UN members and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

4. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs on UN member imports as being in compliance with this accord;

5. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

6. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

Clause 5 still seems wordy, but I'm trying to shorten this proposal.

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 20:26

Cluichstan, my suggestion is not illegal, I just gave you some example.
If you are against the suggestion, I will be happy to read your arguments, as I don't think that "stop", "fluff" or "rubbish" are some.

The representative from Love and esterel fails at reading comprehension.

For the last time, this is a free-trade proposal. Preventing alcohol-related accidents has nothing to do with free trade.

My argument was pretty clear.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Mikitivity

27-01-2006, 20:28

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 20:29

*snip*

Anyway, as I said, LAE, will support this proposal even without it, but i really think it will be a missed opportunity.

Yeah, why miss an opportunity to add meaningless fluff to a proposal? Can't have a proposal without the requisite dash of worthless warm fuzziness.

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 20:30

Current version:

*snip*

Alternate version:

*snip*

OOC: I like the alternate actually. Easier to read.

Mikitivity

27-01-2006, 20:35

The representative from Love and esterel fails at reading comprehension.

OOC: He is just roleplaying. I asked him to throw some opposition our way earlier. ;)

My argument was pretty clear.

It was, and my government actually completely agrees with your government. However, clause 6 was added into the resolution, because some nations like to make decisions on free trade on more than simple economics.

6. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

It is possible that Vice-President Tirfinnbogadót's position on drinking and driving is important in their domestic decision on if they should open up their market. While my government is happy to see this, I think that the Mikitivity beer lobby might have a thing or two to say to any government worried about free trade increasing drunk driving that might not be given.

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 20:38

Vice-President Tirfinnbogadót,

Thank you for your kind words. While I suspect it would be possible to include a single clause concerning public health and safety in this draft proposal, given the statements from the Ambassadors from Anubii and Optischer against this proposal, it is my office's political advice that this proposal be as transparent as possible. In other words, I fear that if I were to accept your government's amendment (which would likely be legal) that the support from moderate governments might drop away from this proposal.

Given that this proposal has been in a draft stage for over a year (possibly making it one of the older ideas for our NS UN), I suspect that there is a very real possibility that even if the proposal were to achieve 200 UN Delegate endorsements, that it would fail on the UN floor.

Clearly conservative governments have made their political opinion clear on this issue. However, my government is still very interested in a UN resolution which calls upon airline companies to restrict pilots from consuming alcohol while piloting aircraft ... due to the fact that passengers on many commerical carriers come from a number of nations.

Howie Katzman

OOC: Technology that doesn't exist in RL is fine by me for RPing. :) Though Mikitivity is something of a "Marvel-Tech" society, meaning if Stan Lee (Marvel Comics) is happy with an idea, I tend to be. Spandex wearing superheroes and dinosaurs and the *possibility* of alien life are all fine, but I still try to keep things close enough to Modern Tech.

[Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero sent a SMS with his new Nokia 888 Communicator to thanks Howie Katzman for his answer]
http://test256.free.fr/nokia3.jpg
http://test256.free.fr/nokia4.jpg
http://test256.free.fr/nokia5.jpg
http://test256.free.fr/nokia6.jpg

OOC: this is also a project
http://www.yankodesign.com/product_info.php?products_id=512

but not far from reality:
http://www.fujitsu.com/img/GLOBAL/labs/epaper1.jpg
http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/tokyoepaper.jpg
http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000058441.JPG

http://www.fujitsu.com/global/about/rd/200509epaper.html
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/epaper-display-in-tokyo-station-141422.php

Mikitivity

27-01-2006, 20:42

OOC: I like the alternate actually. Easier to read.

Thanks! I was finding the longer version distracting too!

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 20:43

*snip*

It was, and my government actually completely agrees with your government. However, clause 6 was added into the resolution, because some nations like to make decisions on free trade on more than simple economics.

I'm not talking about Clause 6. I'm referring to the attempts to insert some mention of concern about alcohol-related accidents (a la drunk driving).

Forgottenlands

27-01-2006, 20:44

LAE, would you please stop being the walking billboard? Role-playing is one thing, but advertising the new and innovative creations they're working on is annoying. If you want to say you're using them, fine - show what you're saying, but leave the 20 picts out.

Thank you.

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 20:45

[Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero sent a SMS with his new Nokia 888 Communicator to thanks Howie Katzman for his answer]

*snip of all the ridiculous pics and links*

OOC: Stop spamming the damn thread with this crap, will ya?

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 20:45

The representative from Love and esterel fails at reading comprehension.

My argument was pretty clear.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Cluichstan, other free trade proposal included some non free trade concern (religious for example)
and yelda argument to defends the free trade effect of GDFA clause 2, may also be used for alcohol prevention.

Gruenberg

27-01-2006, 20:46

L&E, seriously. Some of us are on dial-up. A normal discussion thread shouldn't leave a 56k modem spitting blood.

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 20:47

Thanks! I was finding the longer version distracting too!

OOC: No problem. That was my reasoning for choosing the alternative as well. :)

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 20:47

Cluichstan, other free trade proposal included some non free trade concern (religious for example)
and yelda argument to defends the free trade effect of GDFA clause 2, may also be used for alcohol prevention.

Again with the GFDA? Can you please stick to the proposal at hand?

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 20:54

L&E, seriously. Some of us are on dial-up. A normal discussion thread shouldn't leave a 56k modem spitting blood.

The total of the pics = 200KB

Again with the GFDA? Can you please stick to the proposal at hand?

May i express my arguments, please

OOC: Stop spamming the damn thread with this crap, will ya?

crap;)

LAE, would you please stop being the walking billboard? Role-playing is one thing, but advertising the new and innovative creations they're working on is annoying. If you want to say you're using them, fine - show what you're saying, but leave the 20 picts out.

Thank you.

My post was an answer to the OOC comment from Mik about this coming or far away technology

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 21:01

May i express my arguments, please

Can you confine them to the Alcohol Tariff Reductions proposal?

Forgottenlands

27-01-2006, 21:05

The total of the pics = 200KB

= 5 seconds at best on a 56k modem for the pictures alone. There's a reason why the wiki "too large" "limit" is 32kB.

My post was an answer to the OOC comment from Mik about this coming or far away technology

Link the site then, and your first round - not to mention your TV round on another thread - were NOT responses to OOC requests. They were pict spamming as a response to an OOC comment with picture totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 21:11

I'am not sure anymore of something, is NS a game, or is it me who had an illusion since the beginning?:)

Commonalitarianism

27-01-2006, 21:16

There are basically two types of alcohol.

Food grade alcohol- alcohol used in medicinal syrups, candy, liquor, and food.
Industrial Alcohol- ethanol, and industrial products.

Please amend this treaty to cover food grade alcohol.

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 21:18

Resurrected Danu

27-01-2006, 21:59

As we are rather large Distilled Whiskey exporters we shall be quite pleased to support your bill.

Gruenberg

27-01-2006, 22:19

I'am not sure anymore of something, is NS a game, or is it me who had an illusion since the beginning?
Yes it's a game. Yes we should have fun. That isn't an automatic rebuttal for your behaviour, though. The pictures aren't appropriate or relevant. I didn't spam your topic about microfinance: I tried to respond sensibly. I think it'd be courteous if you did the same to Mikitivity. We have plenty of threads - Silly Proposals, the Strangers' Bar - where you can let off steam. I don't think that we want to concentrate on the discussion at hand means we're big old spoilsport meanies. Games are only fun when everyone plays by the same rules.

Mikitivity

27-01-2006, 22:23

I'm not talking about Clause 6. I'm referring to the attempts to insert some mention of concern about alcohol-related accidents (a la drunk driving).

I know. :)

On this issue, I think we are completely on the same wavelength. However, I actually do understand why Love and Esterel wants the proposal to include more. Clause 6 is a *different* example of something that was added to bring in a few swing votes. It just happens that I think we both agree that the drunk driving clauses would have the opposite political effect -- it would probably win a few votes for the resolution, but cost others.

Love and esterel

27-01-2006, 22:42

Yes it's a game. Yes we should have fun. That isn't an automatic rebuttal for your behaviour, though. The pictures aren't appropriate or relevant. I didn't spam your topic about microfinance: I tried to respond sensibly. I think it'd be courteous if you did the same to Mikitivity. We have plenty of threads - Silly Proposals, the Strangers' Bar - where you can let off steam. I don't think that we want to concentrate on the discussion at hand means we're big old spoilsport meanies. Games are only fun when everyone plays by the same rules.

Gruenberg, my post with pics were part of a discussion with Mik, If he ask me to remove them i will do it.
The pics are located on my own website, they don't use Jolt bandwith either, they don't break the page, and they don't prevent people with 56k connection to read the page, as the pics are loaded separetly from the page.

Furthermore, if you refer to courteous, the terms "rubish", "fluff", "crap" or "stop" to post your argument, are not mine, sorry .

Thanks for not having spammed my thread, but it's already spammed by someone else:)

Cluichstan

27-01-2006, 22:45

Palentine UN Office

27-01-2006, 22:46

I know. :)

On this issue, I think we are completely on the same wavelength. However, I actually do understand why Love and Esterel wants the proposal to include more. Clause 6 is a *different* example of something that was added to bring in a few swing votes. It just happens that I think we both agree that the drunk driving clauses would have the opposite political effect -- it would probably win a few votes for the resolution, but cost others.

Stick to your guns my friend. This is about free trade. Let each individual nations handle drunk driving(which is where it should be handled). My government will remove its support of the fine piece of legislation if said intrusive language is added. There are enough intrusive, "father knows best, you grotty peon" resolutions on the books for my taste. Let us insted look to where the UN can be vital and be doing a service, by promoting free trade.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Gruenberg

27-01-2006, 22:48

We fully oppose this resolution, and will campaign against it.

Fonzoland

28-01-2006, 00:01

Bad analogy. That clause from GFDA would cause people, in the long run, to include a greater variety of foods in their diets, which would have a positive effect on free trade. Now, if it said: "2. ENCOURAGES all nations to educate their citizens on the dangers of food poisoning;" it would be analagous to your suggestion about alcohol related "road accidents". And why do you keep bringing up GFDA? I'm the author of the thing and I hardly ever mention it.

I think the problem is that this proposal does not improve the sustainability of the world ecosystem, and the wonderful Repeal that I recently passed clearly states that the UN is

DEEPLY COMMITTED to guaranteeing the sustainability of the world ecosystem, namely by the preservation of forests;

I will not support this proposal unless a clause is included to prevent the negative impact that free-trade has on forests.

Mikitivity

28-01-2006, 01:45

Stick to your guns my friend. This is about free trade. Let each individual nations handle drunk driving(which is where it should be handled). My government will remove its support of the fine piece of legislation if said intrusive language is added.

Let us insted look to where the UN can be vital and be doing a service, by promoting free trade.

Sen. Horatio Sulla

Sen. Horatio Sulla,

Thank you for your kind and direct position statement. Position statements always are helpful! I think your statement and the statements of other nations have illustrated exactly why I don't want language about alcohol consumption of any sort in this particular resolution, as it is my government's hope that this could be a focused discussion the merits of improving our economies. When I take this draft to several regional forums, similar statements will certainly make it easier for me to keep the draft true to its current scope.

Howie Katzman

Mikitivity

28-01-2006, 01:54

I think the problem is that this proposal does not improve the sustainability of the world ecosystem, and the wonderful Repeal that I recently passed clearly states that the UN is

I will not support this proposal unless a clause is included to prevent the negative impact that free-trade has on forests.

OOC: ROTFLMAO

IC: Ok, now that I've composed myself ... ahem ... as many of you know, beer and wine come from bines, grass, and/or vines. Though it really is difficult to forecast what one might call the "butterfly effect" of reduced distribution / administrative costs on alcoholic beverages, my government does not foresee any significant impacts (positive or negative) on forests.

Cluichstan

28-01-2006, 04:11

*snip*

I will not support this proposal unless a clause is included to prevent the negative impact that free-trade has on forests.

You realise, Fonzo, that I'm gonna hafta kill you now. heh-heh :p

Yelda

28-01-2006, 07:06

Current version:

5. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

Alternate version:

5. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that:

a. these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports; and

b. that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

The alternate version is better. I would drop the bolded parts, making it:
5. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that:

a. these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports;

b. these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost;

Mikitivity

28-01-2006, 08:40

Fair Trade of Alcoholic Beverages
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

2. DEFINES a protective alcoholic beverages tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverage;

3. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs on UN members and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

4. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs on UN member imports as being in compliance with this accord;

5. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that:

(a) these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports;

(b) these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost;

6. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

Palentine UN Office

28-01-2006, 19:22

Good job Mik, I like it and would support.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Cluichstan

28-01-2006, 22:38

Outstanding. Run with it.

Groot Gouda

30-01-2006, 19:27

I may be nitpicking, but it doesn't actually say specifically that import tariffs for alcohol are banned, right?

Gruenberg

30-01-2006, 19:36

I may be nitpicking, but it doesn't actually say specifically that import tariffs for alcohol are banned, right?
It does not.

Mikitivity

30-01-2006, 20:11

It does not.

Right. It doesn't unilaterally ban all import tariffs.

In fact, it only encourages nations to drop their import tariffs, but when one nation decides to not drop a tariff, it then allows other nations to block that particular nation. It is a mild resolution, designed to nudge nations to increase trade without stepping on their right to control what flows into their borders.

The reason I've not submitted this yet, is the current draft was submitted to a few regions, and currently my government is considering a suggestion provided by the people from Grosseschnauzer, our neighbor. Essentially they've asked that the old clause 3 be reinserted into the resolution. There are obviously reasons for this, so it is in deliberation in my office right now.

Gruenberg

30-01-2006, 20:15

The reason I've not submitted this yet, is the current draft was submitted to a few regions, and currently my government is considering a suggestion provided by the people from Grosseschnauzer, our neighbor. Essentially they've asked that the old clause 3 be reinserted into the resolution. There are obviously reasons for this, so it is in deliberation in my office right now.
What would be the point, given that they already have this right, and have this right doubleplus given Representation in Taxation? Clause 3 is the taxation clause?

Mikitivity

30-01-2006, 21:26

What would be the point, given that they already have this right, and have this right doubleplus given Representation in Taxation? Clause 3 is the taxation clause?

Right, I think it isn't entirely necessary, but the point raised by Grosseschnauzer and others was to suggest that the old clause might ...

Reduce the possibility that nations might misread this proposal and assume that it blocks the ability to tax alcohol.

But now that you bring up the Powerhungry Chipmunks's Representation in Taxation resolution, the clause could be written in the preamble:

CONSCIENCE of its resolution Representation in Taxation, adopted Oct. 25, 2005, which established UN standards on national rights regarding domestic tax policies;

To me, this would suggest that we are adhering to the taxation clauses of that resolution and further justify the voluntary nature (mild classification) of this resolution.

I'm honestly not wanting to make a wordy / lengthy resolution, and would rather perk up the preamble than reiterating an existing right. But if this would help sway more votes in favour, the above clause *also* is a nice way to say Thank You to the Chipmunks. :)

n.p. collection d'arnell-andrea :: villers-aux-vents

Mikitivity

02-02-2006, 04:57

I'm at a minor empasse here, because my region really would like it made clear that nations can still tax alcohol and I've not heard any opinions from UN members here if they like my proposed preambulatory clause.

It will make the resolution slightly longer, but keep the numbered clauses straight forward.

I also would appreciate a check into the legality of this resolution (i.e. are the mods gonna zap this?).

Hou Mian

02-02-2006, 06:06

CONSCIENCE of its resolution Representation in Taxation, adopted Oct. 25, 2005, which established UN standards on national rights regarding domestic tax policies;

I agree with the need for something like this, because so many people have misunderstood. My only comment is that the word you want is "conscious" not "conscience". (I hope I spelled those right.) The first means cognizant of, knowing; whereas the second is the noun that describes the part of the mind/soul/whatever that tells us right from wrong.

Gruenberg

02-02-2006, 06:07

It's 'conscious', not 'conscience'.

Mikitivity

02-02-2006, 06:19

I agree with the need for something like this, because so many people have misunderstood. My only comment is that the word you want is "conscious" not "conscience". (I hope I spelled those right.) The first means cognizant of, knowing; whereas the second is the noun that describes the part of the mind/soul/whatever that tells us right from wrong.

Danke both!

English, what a horribly complex language! ;)

Hou Mian

02-02-2006, 06:21

Danke both!

English, what a horribly complex language! ;)

It's my native, but even compared to my second, it's not that complicated. (Of course, my second is Mandarin Chinese.)

Mikitivity

02-02-2006, 06:54

It's my native, but even compared to my second, it's not that complicated. (Of course, my second is Mandarin Chinese.)

It's mine as well, though I've never been skilled in subjects such as spelling and/or grammar.

Mikitivity

02-02-2006, 23:46

Current draft with change incorporated based upon regional comments (will be posted to regional boards as well):

Fair Alcoholic Beverage Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can be detrimental to a free economy;

CONSCIOUS of its resolution Representation in Taxation, adopted Oct. 25, 2005, which established UN standards on national rights regarding domestic tax policies;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

2. DEFINES a protective alcoholic beverages tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverage;

3. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs on UN members and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

4. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs on UN member imports as being in compliance with this accord;

5. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that:

(a) these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports;

(b) these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost;

6. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

What is the character limit for a proposal title? I'd rather go with "Fair Trade of Alcoholic Beverages".

Love and esterel

02-02-2006, 23:55

What is the character limit for a proposal title? I'd rather go with "Fair Trade of Alcoholic Beverages".

30 (spaces included)
I'm afraid this one will be too long
You can chek on the "submit a proposal" page, just avoid the "submit" button;)

Donno if it's correct but "Alcoholic Beverages Fair Trade" = 30

Mikitivity

03-02-2006, 02:56

30 (spaces included)
I'm afraid this one will be too long
You can chek on the "submit a proposal" page, just avoid the "submit" button;)

Donno if it's correct but "Alcoholic Beverages Fair Trade" = 30

30 is better than 20, which I feared it was. That should work. Danke!

The Most Glorious Hack

03-02-2006, 05:32

I dunno... "Alcoholic Beverages Fair Trade" is kind of clunky and grammatically funky. Perhaps "Fair Trade of Booze"? :p

Mikitivity

03-02-2006, 06:13

I dunno... "Alcoholic Beverages Fair Trade" is kind of clunky and grammatically funky. Perhaps "Fair Trade of Booze"? :p

I'm not sure that all societies would take it seriously ... :)

"Alcoholic Beverage Agreement"

While that fits and sounds OK, it doesn't exactly describe everything either.

Ceorana

03-02-2006, 15:23

I'm not sure that all societies would take it seriously ... :)

"Alcoholic Beverage Agreement"

While that fits and sounds OK, it doesn't exactly describe everything either.
"Fair Trade of Alcoholic Drinks" is 30
"Alcoholic Fair Trade Law" is 24
"Alcoholic Fair Trade" is 20
"Alcoholic Beverage Trade Pact" is 29
"Fair Trade of Alcohol" is 21

Ecopoeia

03-02-2006, 16:22

Beware using 'alcoholic' - people might really get the wrong end of the shtick.

Mikitivity

03-02-2006, 16:37

Beware using 'alcoholic' - people might really get the wrong end of the shtick.

Yeah, and there are some people that think it is liquid evil. I'm counting on those being lost votes.

Ceorana, I like this title:
"Alcoholic Beverage Trade Pact" is 29

Since I won't telegram campaign for it (I'll be away this weekend), I'm thinking of submitting it tonight. Though I'd appreciate a mod review of the last preambulatory clause that was added ... I don't want the "house of cards" rule to fall down on me. I think this is OK, as Hack has followed the thread itself, but just wanted to be sure.

Love and esterel

03-02-2006, 16:40

Beware using 'alcoholic' - people might really get the wrong end of the shtick.

Indeed, i don't personnaly care, but maybe the word "alcohol" is less subject to interpretation than "alcoholic":p

Mikitivity

06-02-2006, 19:40

FYI: My government submitted this proposal Saturday morning PST. We will not actively campaign for this proposal until March, but will continue to resubmit it as long as there is some interest and keep track of Delegates interested in the proposal.

Why March? My staff is preoccupied right now and should have more free time come March. :)

Cluichstan

06-02-2006, 19:47

Why March? My staff is preoccupied right now and should have more free time come March. :)

Indeed. I'm sure Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. appreciates the business. ;)

Optischer

06-02-2006, 21:29

Southeast Antarctica

06-02-2006, 21:36

Although I hate the high price of alcohol. I think this tiddy bitty thing should be each government's own decision.

Optischer

06-02-2006, 21:40

Yes, I agree with you Southeast Antartica. It is a MASSIVEinfringement on national sovereignity.

Hou Mian

06-02-2006, 22:11

Again, since my kidnapping, I am going to express my complete and utter refusal to comply with this since it will hurt multiple economies causing another depression which could corrupt this wold so much that chimpanzees rule the earth. Gah!

How does this hurt your economy? It will help your economy by getting rid of inefficiencies in the marketplace.

And if you tell me it's because people will drink more, as I said before, you can increase your alcohol excise tax across the board to prevent that. As long as you don't treat imported and domestic alcohol differently, you're in compliance.

(Or, you can not export alcohol at all and thus be exempt.)

Optischer

06-02-2006, 22:17

I still stick to my quotes and posts. Until you can prove with reliable evidence it won't hurt my economy, I'm opposed. And you can say raise taxes easier than you can. I'd have an uproar. And I've got enough money thanks.:p

Southeast Antarctica

06-02-2006, 22:20

it really comes down to national sovereighty.

so, no

Optischer

06-02-2006, 23:34

Whatever happened to people who decided when enoug was enough? Is there some impotant event I don't know about? National Sovereignity rules supreme over any law, and so shall do.

Mikitivity

07-02-2006, 02:23

To those nations claiming this proposal infringes upon national sovereignty, your ambassadors should read the text before judging the proposal:

CONSCIOUS of its resolution Representation in Taxation, adopted Oct. 25, 2005, which established UN standards on national rights regarding domestic tax policies;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

In particular, I'd like to point out the blue text. Clearly the proposal respects national sovereignty. Furthermore, by definition, Free trade resolutions improve economic freedoms.

Hou Mian

07-02-2006, 03:43

Yes, I agree with you Southeast Antartica. It is a MASSIVEinfringement on national sovereignity.

Somehow, I have a big problem taking you seriously on national sovereignity issues.

Oh definitely, it works. Optischer has no state religion and we abhor it, so seperating inaccurate ideologies from our children is valuable. We must eradicate al religions since they are becoming an unnecessary fasdhion tool. Eradicate all believers!

No offense, but that also seems like a massive infringement on NatSov.

Southeast Antarctica

07-02-2006, 03:47

To those nations claiming this proposal infringes upon national sovereignty, your ambassadors should read the text before judging the proposal:

In particular, I'd like to point out the blue text. Clearly the proposal respects national sovereignty. Furthermore, by definition, Free trade resolutions improve economic freedoms.
regardless, how a nation tax on alcohol is none of the UN's business

Gruenberg

07-02-2006, 03:51

regardless, how a nation tax on alcohol is none of the UN's business
Seriously. Read the proposal before commenting on it. Not doing so is rude and stupid.

"CONSCIOUS of its resolution Representation in Taxation, adopted Oct. 25, 2005, which established UN standards on national rights regarding domestic tax policies;"

Southeast Antarctica

07-02-2006, 03:52

Seriously. Read the proposal before commenting on it. Not doing so is rude and stupid.

"CONSCIOUS of its resolution Representation in Taxation, adopted Oct. 25, 2005, which established UN standards on national rights regarding domestic tax policies;"
please explain in plain English for the less educated

Gruenberg

07-02-2006, 04:00

please explain in plain English for the less educated
The UN has already guaranteed your right to set internal taxes. Sales taxes, for example, cannot be affected by this proposal. All it deals with are tariffs, which are an international concern.

Mikitivity

07-02-2006, 04:27

regardless, how a nation tax on alcohol is none of the UN's business

As defined by this proposal, a tariff is not the same thing as a domestic tax. In modern English, a tariff is "an official schedule of duties or customs imposed by a government on imports or exports" ... imports and exports, *must* cross international borders, and thus are an international (UN) issue.

In some English speaking languages, tariff is also used to describe a bus or taxi charge, but clearly this proposal's second clause points to the main / popular use of the word.

As Gruenberg politely pointed out, the reference to the Representation in Taxation resolution is a legal way of reminding everybody that this resolution is not touching domestic taxes, but just dealing with the portion of taxes that the international community can legally talk about -- the tariffs.

Bear in mind, that *any* UN member may choose to claim that alcohol is highly regulated, and not participate ... however, by the language of this resolution, that means that UN members that enjoy the benefits of free trade, are legally allowed to slap your nation with equal tariffs. Basically you can't hide behind a magic shield and lob stones (tariffs) at others, without having them thrown right back at you. :)

The reasons I've accepted as logical reasons to oppose this:

1) Your nation is communist / socialist, and believes in a highly regulated economy and wants capitalist nations to socialize (kinda a bad reason IMO, but a valid economic philosophy, that some progressive communist / socialist nations don't support).

2) Your nation is very religious and considers alcohol a "sinful" item, and your diety / dieties will be mad if you promote the trade of sinful things (fair, but my people are secular and feel that such absolute thinking is contary to democratic principles).

3) A controlled economy could participate, but instead of raising tariffs, could simply increase domestic taxes on all alcoholic beverages and use the increased taxes to support domestic wineries, breweries, etc., thus giving them an edge up ... the problem of course, if you over tax your market, you'll just end up creating a black market, and you'll your taxes will eventually cut into your own production ... so while at first this might work, overtime, if not carefully managed, such an economy could go the way of the old RL GDR (i.e. East Germany -- which had some great beer, but East Germans aren't usually as good at international sales as their West German brothers).

I've had enough contact with centrist governments in NationStates, that I honestly don't foresee any negative economic impacts due to any of these scenarios. Think of it this way, if somebody is screwing you over, with 10,000 of nations around, will you work a trade agreement with them or find a more friendly nation? My region has had great success on looking for real areas where two nations both have something the other wants and treating each other as equals. This proposal is essentially based on the idea that markets, like people, should be granted certain freedoms ... and in doing so we can use the diversity of markets as a boon to the UN itself. :)

Remember, UN resolutions can't regulate on non-UN members ... so UN members aren't being asked to lower your economic guard with respect to non-UN members ... you can if you want, but this proposal isn't going to force your hand (this was of course implemented based on the recommendation of Gatesville, one of the most pro-sovereignty regions in NationStates). This isn't to say that Gatesville will support this resolution, but thus far, Gatesville members have seemed receptive to this idea ... and I think that in and of itself is a good selling point.

Ceorana

08-02-2006, 04:00

2) Your nation is very religious and considers alcohol a "sinful" item, and your diety / dieties will be mad if you promote the trade of sinful things (fair, but my people are secular and feel that such absolute thinking is contary to democratic principles).

If they think it's sinful, why don't they ban it all out? They'd still be in compliance.

Unless you're talking about thinking that it would be sinful to support it, because that would lead people in other nations to sin by drinking alcohol.

Mikitivity

08-02-2006, 05:12

If they think it's sinful, why don't they ban it all out? They'd still be in compliance.

Unless you're talking about thinking that it would be sinful to support it, because that would lead people in other nations to sin by drinking alcohol.

Good point.

Those nations have a loophole, but they might argue that voting in favour would be enabling our societies to sin. My government feels such a nation would not be treating other cultures and religions with respect if just such a justification were to play out, and would suggest any nation with such an extreme value set might not be suited for an international organization where governments are to treat one another as equals. (In other words, their argument would be illogical.)

Mikitivity

17-08-2006, 07:48

The Flibbleites request is my command (er, when it involves drinking). Anybody who has their jackhammer on the World Hertitage List is still a bit fishy.

I'm tempted to rename this "Straws are for drinking" since this proposal has been used as a strawman more than once. ;)

Alcohol Tariff Reductions
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcohol, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverage;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcoholic beverage, both domestic and non-domestic;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

7. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

If there is interest (I'm always into beer ... 'sides I've got an NSWiki article on one brewery and would encourage others to do the same ... this may help), I would love to resubmit this just for grins. I can see if it can generate enough interest in Freedom of Assembly.

Gruenberg

17-08-2006, 07:51

I would not only hope that this proposal be resubmitted, but further that at some point effort was placed towards getting it to quorum. I very much like it, and think it a good example of positive possible UN work - and this despite Gruenberg's historic prohibitionist leanings on alcohol.

Norderia

18-08-2006, 04:31

BOO free trade.

Mikitivity

18-08-2006, 04:44

BOO free trade.

Boo Budwieser! Yay Microbrews!

Throwing extra taxes on yummy goodness like beer should be prohibited for the human rights justifications, no? ;) Reduced tariffs, more choices, which stimulates better beer.

Norderia

18-08-2006, 04:48

Boo Budwieser! Yay Microbrews!

Throwing extra taxes on yummy goodness like beer should be prohibited for the human rights justifications, no? ;) Reduced tariffs, more choices, which stimulates better beer.

And a big ol' drop in Norderia's humungous (if mostly governmentally regulated) liquor market. Vodka and dark beer, it is famous! Noooooo foreign devil goods. (No one in Norderia subscribes to the use of the term "foreign devil")

The Most Glorious Hack

18-08-2006, 07:31

Mmm... flashbacks. A thread with Optischer.

Flibbleites

18-08-2006, 07:52

Mmm... flashbacks. A thread with Optischer.
Ahh, the first nation I ever put on my ignore list.

Enn

18-08-2006, 08:06

Unfortunately, the Ennish Shandy Brewery was destroyed in the riots that tore Enn apart, and the recipe to the drinkappears to have been lost. As such, we former Ennish have lost our main reason to support this.

Cluichstan

18-08-2006, 14:05

Mmm... flashbacks. A thread with Optischer.

http://aklemai.com/albums/forum/ohnoes.jpg

Flibbleites

18-08-2006, 16:43

Tzorsland

18-08-2006, 17:15

You know, if I was the kind of guy who was reckless with time and space ... hey wait I am that kind of guy. :p

The Meddling Monk runs out of the debate floor, with his aide Amber in tow and directly to the Stranger's Bar. There he approaches an old juke box with an "out of order" sign on it. Opening the door to the joke box, the two step inside. The jukebox dissapears for a moment, but only a moment, after making an awful grinding sound before before it disappeared and before it reappeared. A very dissheveled Monk steps out of the jukebox, followed by his aide and the two return to the debate floor.

"You weren't kidding when you said 'riots,'" replied the Monk. Turning to Bob Fibble, he whisperes, "Mr. Fibble, I believe you might be interested in some nice pre-riot Ennish Shandy."

Mikitivity

19-11-2006, 07:36

Alcohol Tariff Reductions
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcohol, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to a free economy;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverage;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcoholic beverage, both domestic and non-domestic;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

7. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

The Most Glorious Hack

19-11-2006, 07:42

I see no reason not too. However, would one of the new categories work better? I don't remember them so well...

Mikitivity

19-11-2006, 08:50

I see no reason not too. However, would one of the new categories work better? I don't remember them so well...

I am assuming it is OK, based on the following description of the subcategories:

Third, Protective Tariffs. This opposes international 'Free Trade' by adding protectionism for national industry.

p.s. though I'd rather not submit it if you think it may get zapped ... it would really only be in the queue again just to test the waters to see if Delegates are interested in a free trade proposal again & to provide an example for other proposal authors. ;)

Community Property

19-11-2006, 09:02

... economies of scale are reduced (prices rise, and consumer savings drop)O.K., I know this was posted a long time ago, but...

No term in economics is so widely abused as “economies of scale”. What people assume is that in every business, productivity increases with size; bigger firms are “more efficient”.

Which is so much rot.

What the term “economies of scale” means is that there is a certain optimal firm size; it could be at the point where the firm has 100 factories and 500,000 employees; it could be at the point where the firm has one location and five employees.

Take dentistry as an example. In even the most unregulated economies, where there are no impediments to merger and thus no reason why average firm size should not - as a consequence of capitalism's relentless drive towards efficiency (at the cost of everything else) - eventually stabilize at the optimum level in each and every industry, we don't see “dentistry superstores” where 100 dentists work under one roof to serve the needs of a major metropolitan community. No, what we see are dentists' offices where 2-4 practitioners share a facility and equipment. What does this tell us? It tells us that 2-4 dentists and their technicians represent the optimal size for a shared dental practice. Bigger is not better, then - bigger is just bigger.

The same pattern can be seen with marinas and automobile dealerships, barber shops and beauty parlors, bars and taverns, etc., etc., etc. There's an optimal firm size for everything, and that optimal firm size is that industry's “economy of scale”.

So the question we need to ask is this: is there an economic need for “beer multinationals” or huge “industrial breweries”? No, there is not. Most large brewers have two or three major breweries, and some have only one; beer is hardly a game where only big firms can compete. In fact, even microbreweries do a thumping business; clearly, this is not an industry where size matters so much that we need to have huge markets or international consolidation in order to achieve optimal efficiencies; even the smallest nations, the ones with just 5,000,000 population, are big enough markets to have a thriving, highly competitive and highly variegated market in suds.

Which brings us to the issue of what's wrong with international competition in beer.

Beer is the world's oldest alcoholic beverage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer); its history dates to the Neolithic Era, with its development coinciding closely with the progress of the so-called Neolithic Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution). Indeed, it is entirely possible that beer predates bread as one of humanity's earliest products. It is no exaggeration to say that the history of beer is the history of civilization.

Every civilization that has developed agriculture has developed beer. But each civilization has brewed its own unique beer, and that beer has become a central part of its social and cultural life. Up until recently, limited opportunities for global commerce have left beer a local affair as well.

But now we have global free trade, and with it the commoditzation of everything - including culture. Local cultures with rich histories are being trampled into the dirt, bulldozed to make way for one great, big plastic culture, the mind-numbing sameness of McWorld.

We have stood up against this trend before, and been derided for it - but that does not deter us from fighting all the same. The destruction of local beer markets, given the intimate tie between beer and cuture, is just one more step in the relentless annihilation of our human heritage.

The destruction of traditional culture and its replacement with “corpocracy” is part and parcel of the processor of turning us all into “consumers” - or, to use the crass language of marketeers, “gullets who live only to gulp products and crap cash”. Enough is enough.

We need to stop the destruction of national culture in the name of global free trade. Yes, there may be cases where free trade can better life for everyone; but in most cases, “economies of scale” can easily be reached within the confines of national or regional markets, with plenty of room for competition. In the name of preserving our history and heritage, we should leave such markets alone.

There is no need to erode such an important cultural cornerstone as beer; the beer market is fine the way it is; it is already functioning at optimal scale, and so, as the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Save local history and local culture; don't do away with local beer.

EDIT: The same argument applies to all other alcoholic beverages; not a one of them scales up so well that there have to be international markets to optimize productive efficiency. And some of these beverages are just as important to local culture as is beer. We simply chose to focus on beer because its cultural importance is nearly universal, and its consumption dwarfs that of all other alcoholic beverages combined.

This is simply not a case where free trade produces a large enough economic benefit (indeed, it may not produce any net benefit at all) justifies the damage to our culture and heritage.

Love and esterel

19-11-2006, 13:56

Alcohol Tariff Reductions
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Love and esterel support this proposal.

Just to know, is this proposal dealing only about intra-UN-alcohol-trade or also about trade with non-UN nations?

Also, as alcohol is the cause of many road deaths worldwide and also sadly of much domestic violence, we really think it's important that such a proposal include a responsible and mild clause about alcohol's danger prevention. Also we think that such a clause will improve the odds od this proposal to pass.

Mikitivity

19-11-2006, 19:44

Love and esterel support this proposal.

Just to know, is this proposal dealing only about intra-UN-alcohol-trade or also about trade with non-UN nations?

Also, as alcohol is the cause of many road deaths worldwide and also sadly of much domestic violence, we really think it's important that such a proposal include a responsible and mild clause about alcohol's danger prevention. Also we think that such a clause will improve the odds od this proposal to pass.

Thanks.

It only deals with UN-to-UN alcohol trade. UN members can tariff non-UN imports to the moon and back if they like. :)

While I personally agree that driving under the influence is bad, I think that is a tricky issue to add to the proposal -- it under cuts sovereignty and serves to split the discussion on tariffs into a debate on tariffs as well as a second debate on the things people do after drinking. Ultimately I wanted to bill this proposal as a text book free trade accord (sans any safety considerations).

That said, I already gave nations a large escape hatch via religion, but I also wrote the proposal such that any nation playing the "I'm a tea-toddler" card would have a "tea-toddlers can't export alcohol" card thrown right back at them. So I actually do foresee a second debate subject.

As I'm here thinking about this, if you've brought this up, surely others will wonder the same thing ... I could perhaps create a preambulatory clause to at least acknowledge this. However with 7 operative clauses, I'm hesitant to make the "doing" part of the resolution longer.

That and as you can already see, nations with "controlled" economies are not incredibly happy by this resolution (see Community Property's speech). I'll address those comments elsewhere.

Mikitivity

19-11-2006, 21:03

O.K., I know this was posted a long time ago, but...

Save local history and local culture; don't do away with local beer.

I don't mind you taking the time to read and respond to a much earlier comment. :)

That, your comments are helpful should this reach the UN floor, but at this time I really am fishing for thoughts more along what the ambassador from Love and Esterel provided that might help my government incorporate changes into the proposal itself. While I could take your government's opinion as a sign of outright opposition, I first wanted to say that I do not see how this proposal will do away with local beer ... if anything, it will force local breweries to improve their beers (or local wineries to do the same) and/or their local marketing.

If Ambassador Katzman were here, I'm sure he'd be much more equipped to talk about the various Miervatian brews (it is common knowledge that the Ambassador thinks highly of beer and that this proposal originally was focused just on beer). But since he is not, I feel that it is actually appropriate for me to point out that the Ambassador is also a champion of local businesses. In the past he has argued that trade barriers take away options and markets for local companies, so while there is a large market for beer consumption in Mikitivity and an even larger expertise for brewing beer, it is the barriers that other nations put into place that make it difficult for the small breweries to survive.

A large corporation will be able to hire staff that can lobby foreign governments and find loopholes into those markets ... and yet the small family run (usually an extended family in Mikitivity) breweries can't spend those resources to open up fair trade into Community Property or other controlled economies, and as such it is the barriers to trade that harm local companies.

The heart of this proposal is to give consumers themselves the opportunity to "vote" (if you will) on what products for a specific commodity type (alcohol) that they like and which ones they don't. Government really shouldn't be promoting a bad product because it is local or because somebody greased somebody else's palms. Instead it should be watching the local economy and helping its citizens by streamlining the way for safe and better quality products.

To step away from luxury items, which I'll agree, do not always benefit from large-scale operations, Mikitivity is not the NationStates leading expert in superlaser design. So wouldn't it be silly for my government to suggest that a proposed resolution promoting trade barriers on superlaser research is necessary to protect local Mikitivity defense contractors (please note, I'm not about to talk about what products those contractors are actually working on), when there are other international corporations that have better skill in those areas that are also interested in marketing those skills?

Before you answer that, I'll point to another industry: the aerospace industry. One of the leading aerospace manufacturers of airships is Schmeiser Luftschiffaufbau (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Schmeiser_Luftschiffaufbau). Now a large reason so small a company is an international leader in the construction of airships is precisely because the international market for airships is small.

If I were to advocate that Schmeiser Luftshiffaufbau needed to be protected so Mikitivity was enacting tariffs on the purchase of any airships or even airplanes that were not from Schmeiser Luftshiffaufbau, whom would I be helping? The citizens of Mikitivity or the workers and owners of Schmeiser Luftshiffaufbau.

Let's imagine that another aerospace company began marketing airships to Eule Fluglinien and that this company actually had airships that could carry twice as much cargo at 1/3 of the price. A domestic tariff on foreign airships would actually harm the many more employees of Eule Fluglinien and its partner Mikitivity Bahn, not to mention drive up the costs of travel within the entire International Democratic Union.

And that is the real basis of this proposal. All that said, I will admit that there is some need to protect defense industries and even fundamental industries such as defense (which the aerospace industry is connected). But beer and wine should never be the basis of national defense ... well, OK, there are some excellent Miervatian ales that probably could fend off legions of invading armies, but I really would like it if we could agree that dropping tariffs on alcohol isn't going to make or break anybody.

Cassandra Thonberger

Love and esterel

20-11-2006, 09:13

Thanks.

It only deals with UN-to-UN alcohol trade. UN members can tariff non-UN imports to the moon and back if they like. :)

While I personally agree that driving under the influence is bad, I think that is a tricky issue to add to the proposal -- it under cuts sovereignty and serves to split the discussion on tariffs into a debate on tariffs as well as a second debate on the things people do after drinking. Ultimately I wanted to bill this proposal as a text book free trade accord (sans any safety considerations).

That said, I already gave nations a large escape hatch via religion, but I also wrote the proposal such that any nation playing the "I'm a tea-toddler" card would have a "tea-toddlers can't export alcohol" card thrown right back at them. So I actually do foresee a second debate subject.

As I'm here thinking about this, if you've brought this up, surely others will wonder the same thing ... I could perhaps create a preambulatory clause to at least acknowledge this. However with 7 operative clauses, I'm hesitant to make the "doing" part of the resolution longer.

That and as you can already see, nations with "controlled" economies are not incredibly happy by this resolution (see Community Property's speech). I'll address those comments elsewhere.

Love and esterel will support this proposal anyway, we are just lobbying for such a clause;)

Commonalitarianism

20-11-2006, 23:46

We must support our domestic ethanol and methanol industry. How different is grain alcohol from ethanol. We have a right to protect our fuel industries from foreign competition.

Mikitivity

21-11-2006, 05:58

We must support our domestic ethanol and methanol industry. How different is grain alcohol from ethanol. We have a right to protect our fuel industries from foreign competition.

You're in luck:

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverage;

Of course, your population is not. But limiting the import of cheap foreign ethanol, you are only driving up the cost of transportation ... and given that ethanol is a renewable resource, it isn't as though that grain you are burning up at home is going to one day give your nation a stockpile of unused supplies to flood the market with.

Mikitivity

09-12-2006, 19:53

I see no reason not too. However, would one of the new categories work better? I don't remember them so well...

OOC: Was there any ruling here? It read more as a suggestion, but with one UN strike against me, I'm hesitant to submit when there is some uncertainty as to the legality of a proposal.

My true goal with this procedure is to allow capitalists and communists to argue *and* to bring to the floor something that respects sovereignty to a degree but is not a blocker or repeal. If this is legal, I'll start tossing it in the queue again. It is a 2-year old proposal. ;)

Frisbeeteria

09-12-2006, 22:47

OOC: Was there any ruling here?
Probably not. Why don't you look over the categories and make your case for whatever you think fits, perhaps with an alternate.

We're judges, not researchers. You get to do the legwork. ;)

Aermain

10-12-2006, 00:25

Four words.

Over my dead body.

Nations can regulate it on their own. They should not be forced to permit this by the United Nations.

Gruenberg

10-12-2006, 00:39

Four words.

Over my dead body.

Nations can regulate it on their own. They should not be forced to permit this by the United Nations.
Too much to have expected you to actually read the fucking proposal, huh?

Altanar

10-12-2006, 00:47

Mikitivity

10-12-2006, 04:57

We're not sure why tariffs on something as narrowly focused on something like alcohol really merit an international response. If someone can give us a compelling argument as to why, we might be inclined to support this.

Well the nature of tariffs is that there are some items, say the resources necessary for building weapons, that are critical to national defense and others that are less clearly so. This means that just adopting a one-size fits all resolution outlawing tariffs is something that nations that recognize the benefits of increased international trade of luxury items (such as wine or beer) might oppose the one-sized fits all, but support a free trade agreement on alcoholic beverages.

The devil is in the details. ;)

Now the next question is why not just write a resolution dealing with luxury items, but once again the nature of those particular luxury items may change how nations feel on the issue. Let's pretend that instead of alcoholic beverages we wanted to deal with tariffs on toys. Different safety and cultural issues surround different types of commodities.

Originally my government wrote this proposal focusing just on beer, but per requests from UN ambassadors, we redrafted this proposal to cast a larger net.

I hope that is enough to persuade your government to at least support this proposal enough so that it might reach the UN floor to be voted upon.

H.Katzman

OOC: I'm tired of repeals, and frankly figured taking on smaller topics will allow us to focus a bit more imagining finer details about our own make-believe nations. :) In my mind, Mikitivity is a massive beer producer. Katzman won't volunteer that, but an industrious player might visit my NSWiki pages and notice that Mikitivity is essentially based on real-life Switzerland (which like its neighbor to the north, has heavy beer consumption ... after chocolate of course). I even have one brewery which is secretly funding this proposal. In short, I'm just screwing around with everybody and fully expect some nations to rush to build their own breweries and others to close their markets to Miervatian beers. So it is all done just to make the game something other than the repeal of the week. :)

Mikitivity

10-12-2006, 05:27

Probably not. Why don't you look over the categories and make your case for whatever you think fits, perhaps with an alternate.

We're judges, not researchers. You get to do the legwork. ;)

Actually I thought I had done that in this thread, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11967904&postcount=169). I was assuming it just got lost in the noise of other things, as it is not as if this is on my fast track. :)

If that isn't a strong enough case, I can look into a few other categories.

Iron Felix

10-12-2006, 05:28

OOC: I'm tired of repeals, and frankly figured taking on smaller topics will allow us to focus a bit more imagining finer details about our own make-believe nations. :) In my mind, Mikitivity is a massive beer producer. Katzman won't volunteer that, but an industrious player might visit my NSWiki pages and notice that Mikitivity is essentially based on real-life Switzerland (which like its neighbor to the north, has heavy beer consumption ... after chocolate of course). I even have one brewery which is secretly funding this proposal. In short, I'm just screwing around with everybody and fully expect some nations to rush to build their own breweries and others to close their markets to Miervatian beers. So it is all done just to make the game something other than the repeal of the week. :)
ICOOCOICCCPEIEIO: I don't care why you're doing it, I support it! Here, have a Fine Yeldan Beer™.

*hands Howie Katzman an Old Yeldan Imperial Jet Fuel Barleywine™*

Mikitivity

10-12-2006, 05:37

Four words.

Over my dead body.

Nations can regulate it on their own. They should not be forced to permit this by the United Nations.

That is more than four words, but since you didn't bother to read the proposal I'll quote the relevant part for you:

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

The proposal's first clause addressed your concern.

Poo on you! :p

Mikitivity

10-12-2006, 05:41

ICOOCOICCCPEIEIO: I don't care why you're doing it, I support it! Here, have a Fine Yeldan Beer™.

*hands Howie Katzman an Old Yeldan Imperial Jet Fuel Barleywine™*

*drains the beer down quickly*

Wouldn't it be nice if as diplomats we could travel anywhere and always sample nice beer? ;)

Iron Felix

10-12-2006, 05:47

*drains the beer down quickly*

Wouldn't it be nice if as diplomats we could travel anywhere and always sample nice beer? ;)
Yes. Yes it would. http://209.85.62.23/88/97/emo/beerchug.gif

Krioval

10-12-2006, 08:56

Mikitivity

10-12-2006, 10:03

I would think "Free Trade: Mild" would be most appropriate, unless there is a compelling reason to think that alcohol tariff reductions should be "Significant" (maybe if the primary impact was fuel oriented rather than drink oriented?). I still think the idea is intriguing.

Thanks. :) It was intended to be mild ... the issue of fuels and medicines came up in a previous version so frequently the text refers to "beverages":

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverage;

I'll double check the previous resolutions again to make sure I'm not missing something else.

Rusted Chainsaws

10-12-2006, 10:24

I suppose I shall support this.

Gnejs

10-12-2006, 12:41

Mr. Katzman.

It has been a pleasure following this discussion from its beginning and see your proposal take form. Being a fairly new participant in UN issues we find it amazing to watch the evolvement of a proposal with so many participants, different views and over such a long period of time.

That said, The GPRG will fully support this if it should come to vote. Being regional neighbors, I am sure you are aware of the GPRG:s, at times, reluctant stance on issues concerning free trade. This proposal is however something we feel secure in endorsing. We consider the method of balancing tariffs on alcoholic beverages proposed by Mikitivity to be an excellent compromise. In accordance with previous voices raised we too would like to see an over all improvement in prevention of alcohol related accidents and other alcohol related incidents, although we most certainly see the point brought up by others that this proposal is neither the right time nor place to pursue something like that.

Linda Anaris
UN-Ambassador
GPRG

Altanar

10-12-2006, 19:34

I hope that is enough to persuade your government to at least support this proposal enough so that it might reach the UN floor to be voted upon.

If we were a regional delegate, it would have. Unfortunately, we are not a regional delegate. However, if this draft does reach quorum, Altanar will be happy to support it. We like where you're going with this, now that it's been explained.

Mikitivity

13-12-2006, 04:16

*bump*
I'm still interested in resubmitting this, but have been waiting to see my previous post / argument was convincing enough to let this remain a Free Trade proposal. I'd be happy to compose a new post highlighting the category description and briefly writing in plain English what the operative clauses really do!

:)

Gruenberg

13-12-2006, 04:17

Mikitivity

13-12-2006, 04:37

I think it's textbook Free Trade. however, I don't understand the "Designates" clause. Since removing the tariffs is not mandatory, you'd be declaring UN nations as not in compliance - note, I really don't want a compliance debate - which I think is somewhere between odd and illegal. I can't see that clause adds much anyway, so I would suggest either dropping it, or rewording it to something like, "Applauds all states that remove all alcohol tariffs as acting in the spirit of international community" or something like that, or something.

It is a definition really, used to differentiate nations that drop their tariffs vs. those that want to play the religion card granted to them in the earlier clauses.

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

The sixth clause is the way that nations that choose to not drop their tariffs can't still export. It is a penalty really.

Together the two clauses work like this:

You can:
1) Drop tariffs on products from other nations that dropped tariffs,

or

2) You can keep your tariffs and have other nations enact tariffs on you.

Gruenberg

13-12-2006, 04:40

Ok, that makes sense; I had missed that.

Mikitivity

13-12-2006, 04:58

Ok, that makes sense; I had missed that.

Well, clause 6 bugs me because it is so wordy.

More words = more negative votes.

I'd like to find a way to trim that clause down and yet not open it to abuse.

Gruenberg

13-12-2006, 05:15

You could probably simply refer to "solely reciprocal tariffs" - that seems to carry the same inference as your following lines.

Mikitivity

13-12-2006, 06:10

You could probably simply refer to "solely reciprocal tariffs" - that seems to carry the same inference as your following lines.

Oooh, I like that. I'll see if I can then combine the two clauses using that. :)

The Most Glorious Hack

13-12-2006, 06:19

Mikitivity

17-03-2007, 20:10

I'm not liking the word "compliance". It makes my teeth twitch a little, as it smacks of optionality. I know that's the case, but that's how it scans. I would like "full compliance" better, as that would more accurately reflect the religion thing, but I would really like a different word.

I'll be damned if I know word should be used, though.

Of course, I would mind 5 and 6 being removed completely, but that's more my personal politics speaking than anything. Although, a Free Trade Proposal specifically allowing people to apply tariffs strikes me as... odd.

I've resubmitted the proposal, but for this submission did not making any of your changes (though the current draft does include Gruenberg's amendments).

If it does not reach quorum (likely given this is probably the 15th time this proposal has been submitted in the past 2.5 years), I will add "full compliance" to activating clause 5. I like that clause, but clause 6 is a way to tone that clause down in order to achieve one of the goals acknowledged in the preamble:

"NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;"

In Mikitivity these nations are considered goofy and misguided. Surely any all knowing god or goddess such as Silvara will appreciate the fact that from time to time a bit of beer does the soul some good. ;) But since tea-totaler nations don't push their agenda on my nation (the few that have tried, have discovered the walk home via the Thuvians is cold and long), I wanted something to give them an opt-out.

Another way to put this is I did not want to completely ban one sort of ideology -- the (mis)belief that alcohol is sinful.

OOC: The reason I'm only pursuing this proposal from time to time is I have very little time to spend on-line these days. :/ This is not intentional grave digging, and is something very in character with Mikitivity ... you should read the new bratwurst article I've created for NSWiki. Eventually I'll have a very complete alpine paradise completed! :)

Omigodtheykilledkenny

18-03-2007, 00:05

www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=alcohol

We intend to support this proposal if it comes to vote. And we hardly consider the revival of an active draft a "gravedig." Best of luck.

Mikitivity

18-03-2007, 00:33

www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=alcohol

We intend to support this proposal if it comes to vote. And we hardly consider the revival of an active draft a "gravedig." Best of luck.

If you are saying this just to get the Miervatianbierluftschiff to come by again ... it worked. ;)

Mikitivity

22-03-2007, 15:12

Mikitivity

24-03-2007, 03:46

OLD TEXT:

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs as being in compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES any compliant nation to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on its alcoholic beverage exports by individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from a nation which first enacted protective tariffs against the compliant nation's exports and that these protective tariffs are approximately equal in net magnitude and / or economic cost; and

NEX TEXT:

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs on UN member imports as being in full compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES nations to enact specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on their alcoholic beverage exports into other nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages and are approximately equal in net magnitude or economic cost; and

I'll be submitting this, but NOT campaigning for this at this time. (OOC: I will be out of town.) I like the new clause 6 better. It is shorter. Essentially I feel elements of the "conditional" statement in 6 were redundant.

Here is how it now will work.

Nations can enact specific protective tariffs, but they must be equal in magnitude to the tariffs that others have placed on them ... the trick here is the clause above has all nations in "full compliance" drop their tariffs.

Let's use three "countries" (really just cantons from Mikitivity):

Brey
Miervatia
Nolanstadt

Brey decides that it does not want to allow beer into it for "religous" reasons. It uses its sovereign right to enact huge tariffs on imported beer.

Miervatia and Nolanstadt make beer and drink beer. They drop their tariffs, per clause 5.

Brey tries to sneak past clause 1 and export beer into its thirsty neighbors (i.e. sell sin to others). Miervatia throws up the same tariff that Brey uses against Miervatia by saying that imports into Miervatia are tariffed at the same rate as Miervatian exports are to the same nation. Since Nolanstadt still has no tariff with Miervatia, it honors that agreement still.

Mikitivity

31-03-2007, 17:16

The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can be detrimental to economic growth;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

2. DEFINES a protective alcoholic beverages tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on a similar type of non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverage;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES the sovereign right of nations to equally tax similar alcoholic beverage, both domestic and non-domestic, bearing the condition that the exporting nation is a UN member;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop any protective alcohol tariffs on UN members and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. DESIGNATES any nation that has dropped all of its protective alcohol beverage tariffs on UN member imports as being in full compliance with this accord;

6. AUTHORIZES nations to enact nation specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on their alcoholic beverage exports into other individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from these nations and are approximately equal in net magnitude or economic cost; and

7. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

Mikitivity

31-03-2007, 17:21

In light of the recent Free Trade repeal -- Repeal "UN Patent Law", my government has made to minor changes to our Alcohol Tariff Reductions proposal (highlighted in blue in the above post).

We still believe that for any sort of economic ideology, that economic growth is decreased by then enactment of trade barriers on luxury items, and thus we've again resubmitted our proposal. Please be assured that though me and my staff may not have time to participate actively in every debate that we are paying attention to the needs of the international community.

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

Quintessence of Dust

31-03-2007, 17:22

Mikitivity

31-03-2007, 17:32

If it doesn't make quorum on this submission, I'd suggest language giving the UN Free Trade Commission authority to arbitrate trade disputes arising from this resolution (or related to international alcohol trade in general?) be added. Even though this is a mild resolution, there will inevitably be disputes, and there should be a mechanism to resolve them.

We're also, very very mildly, concerned about the UN endorsing the right of nations to absolutely prohibit alcohol imports and the possible effects for sacramental use thereof, but we accept it's not really the place of this proposal to discuss it. In any case, we're willing to support it as is.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Director Madison,

Thank you for your government's continued support. Your first suggestion is excellent and I will have my staff work on the changes should this fail to achieve quorum. The Global Food Distribution Act may not actually apply to luxury items such as alcohol, so filling in where that fine resolution left off is logical and I think we can use the UNFTC and reiterate its third operative clause.

3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

6. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3;

As for the second point, I see no alternative but to recognize that sovereign right of nations to choose to continue to follow their religious and cultural beliefs ahead of what I believe is an opportunity to stimulate economic growth throughout UN members. In short, it is a small price to pay.

SilentScope001

01-04-2007, 01:21

While we are in favour of Free Trade, especially after the patent fiasco, I am worried that I may have to go against the proposition, purely on one thing: It implictly endorses the use of alcohol.

Alcohol is a dangerous drug that clouds the mind and intoxictants the brain. It is a depressant, and it makes a person lose contorl. Not only that, but I have to mention the many instances when people drink and drive, killing innocent people. Sloth, laziness, and harm is the only result of consumption of alchol. We are a farily liberal nation, allowing for people to use all sort of drugs like cocaine, marjainua, estacy, LSD...but we draw the line at alcholol and tobbaco, two very dangerous drugs out there. We have police officers hunting these illict drug dealers and arresting them for their great crimes. (We banned tobbaco due to the effects of second-hand smoke...having people gain cancer from this drug that fuels a life-long addiction is something that we should not tolerate)

We believe that the United Nations should not support such a dangerous drug, alcohol, which may allow for drug dealers to start quoting UN resolutions. I understand you make an exception of these tariffs to nations that ban Alcohol, but the implications remains, and this is what worries us. We are already having a hard time containing these dangerous people who are corrupting our youth instead of using much more safer (and legal) drugs. Hence, we may have to vote on prinicple AGAINST the propostion.

We are still in favour of free trade though, and we hope you luck in getting this to the floor to be voted on, either to be voted FOR or AGAINST.

(OOC: Wondering, for UN nations that ban or heavily regulate the use of Alcohol, how exactly do they gain the beniefts of the economic gains of this Free Trade resolution?)

Mikitivity

01-04-2007, 01:41

While we are in favour of Free Trade, especially after the patent fiasco, I am worried that I may have to go against the proposition, purely on one thing: It implictly endorses the use of alcohol.

(OOC: Wondering, for UN nations that ban or heavily regulate the use of Alcohol, how exactly do they gain the beniefts of the economic gains of this Free Trade resolution?)

OOC: I figure that NS isn't perfect so we'll just live with the end result. Perhaps governments that already heavily regulate alcohol will benefit by attracting more like minded tea-totalers. ;)

IC:
I disagree that this proposal endorses the consumption of alcoholic beverages (which is separate from alcohol), as the first clause of the resolution gives nations that have some weird belief system that might frown upon the consumption of alcohol an out:

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

That said, if this resolution were to promote the free trade of cheese, few nations would get upset at the above clause, and yet excess of anything: fish, cheese, beer, Spice Melange, etc. is never a good thing. To answer that, I can only point out that as some point the UN has to stop playing mom to the world. I think of the organization like a cool friend, that sometimes will tell nations, "Hey, you know that thing you do ... well you'll never have sex if you don't cut it out dork." Resolutions are essentially recommendations on ways that we can all improve something. Somebody is always going to find exception to the good advice from a friend.

SilentScope001

01-04-2007, 02:19

I think of the organization like a cool friend, that sometimes will tell nations, "Hey, you know that thing you do ... well you'll never have sex if you don't cut it out dork." Resolutions are essentially recommendations on ways that we can all improve something. Somebody is always going to find exception to the good advice from a friend.

OOC: That just brings up so many bad images in my mind. :)

IC: This may be true, but it does allow for other nations to do export alcoholic beverages, condoing their use, and we do like to get people to understand, and maybe follow in our footsteps in the banning of all things related to alcohol. It's nothing wrong with your resolution, it's just more of a properganda stance. I might consider changing my stance in the future though, but it might take a couple more disucssions with the Paraliment to decide.

Again, good luck.

Mikitivity

01-04-2007, 02:57

OOC: That just brings up so many bad images in my mind. :)

IC: This may be true, but it does allow for other nations to do export alcoholic beverages, condoing their use, and we do like to get people to understand, and maybe follow in our footsteps in the banning of all things related to alcohol. It's nothing wrong with your resolution, it's just more of a properganda stance. I might consider changing my stance in the future though, but it might take a couple more disucssions with the Paraliment to decide.

Again, good luck.

Nations already can and do export alcoholic beverages. There is no UN resolution prohibiting this, and I think most of our nations would take exception to the UN attempting to restrict our private corporations from wishing to freely engage in international trade.

Since you plan to bring this issue up with your Parliament, would it help if I were to arrange the Saint Katrina Madchen to pay your nation a visit. I think you'll see that she does not leave a swath of destruction or alcoholics in her wake. And yes, she does carry an actual scythe in addition to her steins -- it is for cutting barely or disciplining idle hands. ;)

Cookesland

01-04-2007, 03:14

Mikitivity

01-04-2007, 05:02

I know you've probably ansewered this already but, what happens in UN nations that have already made alchohol illegal to be inaccordance with this proposal?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Not to worry, I'm more than happy to address key questions like this. :)

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

This point is reiterated again in some of the other operative clauses. The key is that if a nation makes something illegal, it should not be exporting that same substance.

SilentScope001

01-04-2007, 05:52

Since you plan to bring this issue up with your Parliament, would it help if I were to arrange the Saint Katrina Madchen to pay your nation a visit. I think you'll see that she does not leave a swath of destruction or alcoholics in her wake. And yes, she does carry an actual scythe in addition to her steins -- it is for cutting barely or disciplining idle hands.

The issue I'm bring to Parliement is more of wheter we would vote Yes or No on the Resolution to reduce tariffs if it gets to a vote on the Floor.

We're not going to budge on our anti-fun stance. :)

Cluichstan

01-04-2007, 06:03

The issue I'm bring to Parliement is more of wheter we would vote Yes or No on the Resolution to reduce tariffs if it gets to a vote on the Floor.

We're not going to budge on our anti-fun stance. :)

Nor are you apparently willing to budge on your anti-literacy stance.

Mikitivity

01-04-2007, 07:01

The issue I'm bring to Parliement is more of wheter we would vote Yes or No on the Resolution to reduce tariffs if it gets to a vote on the Floor.

We're not going to budge on our anti-fun stance. :)

Even when it is but rated T for ... um Teen, yes, the Saint Katrina Madchen is teen friendly.

Mikitivity

11-04-2007, 03:38

HotRodia

11-04-2007, 04:18

Dagnus Reardinius

11-04-2007, 06:22

The Dominion is in complete support of these proposal and any other that reduces tariffs. Overlooking the minutiae people seem to be fond of bringing up here, tariffs discourage a free market and are highly impeding to competition. Tariffs should be banned, in fact. You can count on the vote of the Dominion should this ever come to vote.

The Dominion

Quintessence of Dust

11-04-2007, 10:31

I'm open to Dust's suggestion to include the UN Free Trade Commission in the resolution. The question is how can I best do that without hitting up a house of cards issue?
Use the same sort of language as did NERA and UNRC:
8. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Retired WerePenguins

11-04-2007, 17:16

I will be reworking this proposal. Without campaigning it has shown some modest improvements in support, but obviously it doesn't have the appeal of repeals. ;) The reality is many *players* (not nations per say) are strongly opposed to this proposal as they feel it will increase drunk driving. Thank you America ... French and German kids can drink as soon as they can stand up, but unless your alcohol is included in the Holy Communion, it becomes EVIL. *sigh* I've love to just get this to the UN floor where nations can come out in a UN debate as stating that if only to make a List of Lush Nations and a List of Tea Totaler Nations. ;)

Somebody clearly got up on the wrong side of bed this morning; the side that had the twenty foot deep pit with spikes at the bottom. Blame everything on those dams “Know Nothing” Americans of the 19th and 20th centuries who brought us things like prohibition and the drinking age. No, I’m serious; please feel free to blame them. Did you know that in the 19th century some crazed loony wanted to market a product made from wine and cocaine? Unable to do so because wine had alcohol he changed the formula to include sugar and kola nut extract and the result after the cocaine levels were dropped years afterwards is Coca Cola.

Honestly, if you want to stop drunk driving you need to install breath meters in cars.

I’m going to ignore HotRodda’s comments on purpose. He sounds like a dam Chicklet. Idiots who actually think people drank “grape juice” before the process of pasteurization allowed one to make grape juice that didn’t ferment in the bottle.

Good luck with your resoluiton.

HotRodia

11-04-2007, 18:38

I’m going to ignore HotRodda’s comments on purpose. He sounds like a dam Chicklet. Idiots who actually think people drank “grape juice” before the process of pasteurization allowed one to make grape juice that didn’t ferment in the bottle.

OOC: Hey now. Chicklet's are unintentional satire. Mine is entirely intentional. :cool:

New Manth

12-04-2007, 08:27

Thank you America ... French and German kids can drink as soon as they can stand up, but unless your alcohol is included in the Holy Communion, it becomes EVIL.

Hey don't blame us! :P Some of us here in America are fully in favor of drinking as soon as you can stand up!

Mikitivity

13-04-2007, 04:41

Somebody clearly got up on the wrong side of bed this morning; the side that had the twenty foot deep pit with spikes at the bottom. Blame everything on those dams “Know Nothing” Americans of the 19th and 20th centuries who brought us things like prohibition and the drinking age. No, I’m serious; please feel free to blame them. Did you know that in the 19th century some crazed loony wanted to market a product made from wine and cocaine? Unable to do so because wine had alcohol he changed the formula to include sugar and kola nut extract and the result after the cocaine levels were dropped years afterwards is Coca Cola.

Honestly, if you want to stop drunk driving you need to install breath meters in cars.

I’m going to ignore HotRodda’s comments on purpose. He sounds like a dam Chicklet. Idiots who actually think people drank “grape juice” before the process of pasteurization allowed one to make grape juice that didn’t ferment in the bottle.

Good luck with your resoluiton.

It would be "Damn Americans" ... Dam Americans would be a short list including notables such as Hoover, Bonneville, etc. ;)

But sure, I'll be happy to credit 19th Century Puritan America as being the kill joy of all fun.

Mikitivity

10-12-2007, 00:49

Alcohol Tariff Reductions
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

CONSIDERING that alcoholic beverages that are not being consumed for medicinal purposes can be described as luxury items, and thus are not critical for national security interests;

OBSERVING that the international trade in alcoholic beverages has allowed nations to trade consumable goods without any risks to national security;

AWARE that in some societies that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal or heavily regulated;

NOTING that other societies allow the consumption of alcohol, but place heavy tariffs on imported alcoholic beverages, citing both quality of imported products and domestic based economic impacts;

CONCERNED that nations whose alcoholic beverage exports are heavily restricted by other nations might resort to placing tariffs or other restrictions on various products against the nations that are restricting their alcoholic beverage exports;

CONVINCED that protective tariffs on luxury items based solely on protecting and stimulating domestic economies can in fact be detrimental to international trade and free economies;

1. RECOGNIZES the right of UN members in which the actual consumption of alcohol is highly regulated to maintain their restrictions on the import of foreign alcohol, provided that these members also do not engage in exporting their own domestically produced alcoholic beverages into other UN member states;

2. DEFINES a protective alcohol tariff to be any additional tax or charge placed on non-domestically produced (i.e. imported) alcohol beverages that have similar domestic exported beverages;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES the right of nations to levee taxes on similar domestic and non-domestic alcoholic beverages;

4. ENCOURAGES nations to drop general protective alcohol tariffs and to freely engage in the global marketing, exporting, and importing of alcoholic beverages;

5. AUTHORIZES nations to enact nation specific protective tariffs in response to tariffs placed on their alcoholic beverage exports into other individual nations, provided that these protective tariffs are limited to only similar alcoholic beverages coming from these nations and are approximately equal in net magnitude or economic cost; and

6. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

Iron Felix

10-12-2007, 02:08

Mikitivity

10-12-2007, 02:29

Comrade Ambassador Katzman, despite our recent differences I am very much in favor of this legislation and look forward to its passage.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

I greatly appreciate that, and can assure you that my government supports your government's Durable Goods Distribution Act.

I think both ideas have the same goal in mind. :)

One of the weaknesses in my current proposal is the proposal doesn't directly state any changes with respect to embargos.

Iron Felix

10-12-2007, 02:55

One of the weaknesses in my current proposal is the proposal doesn't directly state any changes with respect to embargos.
I am not certain that they should even be mentioned directly. The motivations behind embargoes are often political rather than economic.

One approach you might consider is authorizing the UNFTC to arbitrate trade disputes arising from the implementation of this legislation, similarly to how I have done in Article 7 of DGDA. In this way, UNFTC could be allowed to hear cases involving embargoes without mentioning them specifically in your text.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Ardchoille

10-12-2007, 03:44

...buncha free marketers undermining our valued traditions piece by piece ...

We have a duty to keep your inferior quality products out of the discerning mouths of Ardchoilleans!

We also have a duty to market our overwhelmingly superior uisquebaugh at justifiably exorbitant prices to international connoisseurs who recognise its unparallelled excellence!

It will come as no surprise that we oppose the watery purity of the ideology behind this proposal.

-- William Edward Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS.

ShogunKhan

10-12-2007, 04:01

alcohol... a luxury? since when? its a bleeping necessity!!! Hooah!

Fernlen

10-12-2007, 04:10

If they think it's sinful, why don't they ban it all out? They'd still be in compliance.

Unless you're talking about thinking that it would be sinful to support it, because that would lead people in other nations to sin by drinking alcohol.
If you were to ban alcohol the act would not last so long maybe a decade if your lucky everyone likes to have some champagne at a party right? Do you guys want that to go away? I don't. See the abuse of alcohol seems so widespread and bad is because the news is always about dramatic things what do you expect? There will always be a guy that gets wasted alot but thats the minority. It's like the gym teachers punishing the whole class because one kid did something wrong and that's not fair now is it? So my point is is that there is no point in banning alcohol because we all have it sometime or weekly and it's nothing bad just something to enjoy every once awhile and that we can't help that there will be people that abuse that privilege because there will be someone abusing their rights or something worse and what were going to do? ban cars next? I think not, that is my conclusion.

Edit: I know this is about tarrifs but that saying just got me going :)

Carcarcia

10-12-2007, 04:17

This is a good step into free trade, in regards to a drug. We support this resolution.

Mikitivity

12-12-2007, 05:18

alcohol... a luxury? since when? its a bleeping necessity!!! Hooah!

It was for me Sunday night when I inadvertently burned / cracked a frakkin window with a WalMart candle. :(

My six-pack of Hacker-Pschorr *felt* really good. The sad thing is I'm gonna have to cash out my euro fortune to buy a new window.

Mikitivity

12-12-2007, 05:23

So my point is is that there is no point in banning alcohol because we all have it sometime or weekly and it's nothing bad just something to enjoy every once awhile and that we can't help that there will be people that abuse that privilege because there will be someone abusing their rights or something worse and what were going to do? ban cars next? I think not, that is my conclusion.

Edit: I know this is about tarrifs but that saying just got me going :)

My personal opinion is to agree. Excessive tarrifs or prohibitions on things people want are the exact conditions that lead to the formation of black markets and the erosion of a solid funding mechanism for government.

However, the little loophole provided in the resolution is an attempt to actually allow those to live or die by their own decisions, while nudging the rest of us towards prosperity. ;)

Mikitivity

12-12-2007, 05:50

I am not certain that they should even be mentioned directly. The motivations behind embargoes are often political rather than economic.

One approach you might consider is authorizing the UNFTC to arbitrate trade disputes arising from the implementation of this legislation, similarly to how I have done in Article 7 of DGDA. In this way, UNFTC could be allowed to hear cases involving embargoes without mentioning them specifically in your text.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

I like your thinking!

I figured if we talk about them now, and the subject comes up in debate we can say, "Well we talked about that and felt ..."

I will think about adopting a similar approach as you have with the DGDA ... my fear however is I'd then like your resolution to pass first, so I don't essentially muddy the issue by having it reappear in another resolution.

You're further along in your support, right? Would you mind if I posted my current draft, but didn't campaign at all ... hoping to just interest delegates in "Free Trade" enough that they'll endorse yours, then after a few other resolutions really treat this topic more seriously (i.e. campaign on a weekend for it)?

[Yes, I know this is public and for all to see ... we're both obviously committed to keeping everything above board and welcome input from others as well!] :)

The Dourian Embassy

12-12-2007, 06:44

St Edmund

12-12-2007, 10:01

(OOC comment)

With regards to clause #2: Would this mean that if we have a tax ('Excise Duty') on the production of some alcoholic drink within our borders then we could no longer set Customs Duties -- at the same level per unit of drinks, rather than at an obviously-banned discriminatorily higher one -- on imports of foreign equivalents, and thus would have to give those imports a potential pricing advantage over our domestically-produced brands?

Yes, before anybody suggests it, I do realise that we could replace both sets of Duties with a Sales Tax instead, as long as that was applied evenly to domestic and foreign brands... but I rather think that, due to the grater number of locations involved (Edit: unless we taxed it at the wholesale level rather than the retail one, I suppose. That might work okay, although we'd probably still lose the payments on some of the smaller transactions and -- of course -- on those drinks that people purchased abroad & brought back home for their own use...) that would take significantly more work (& thus more money) to collect than the Excise & Customs duties do...

Mikitivity

13-12-2007, 05:42

No offense, but your active clauses are all suggestions or affirmations of already possessed rights.

I'm still resolving my position on forced free trade(the concept strikes me as... odd). I know, however, that merely suggesting that free trade might be a good idea is a way to fail in accomplishing anything.

The one thing I liked about the DGDA is that it actually REQUIRES people to lower trade barriers, something this doesn't.

OOC: That is because I snuck the following into the free trade resolution:

6. RECOMMENDS that exported alcoholic beverages should list all of their ingredients and alcohol content so that the importing nations may assess both the purity and similarity of the exports.

The RL model for my original concept was the Germany Purity Law ... something I suspect Ardchoille actually saw straight through. ;) What is new is that nations can use the "recommendations" to really bargain against nations that are placing excessive tariffs and worse yet, crappy products up for international trades. This is why I didn't want to get too detailed, as I see the resolution as a way for two nations to pretend that they have a trade dispute, and then to pick up this resolution and site the ambiguousness of international trade law on a type of luxury item. That, and I don't want to force the controlled economies.

Also, it is general practice that when a resolution is "weak" like this one is, to classify it as a mild resolution. But I'd be happy to ask the mods to review if this even classifies as that. I think it does *something*, but they are the ultimate judges. :) If they don't like it, I'd agree to adopting a stronger tone.

Mikitivity

13-12-2007, 05:46

(OOC comment)

With regards to clause #2: Would this mean that if we have a tax ('Excise Duty') on the production of some alcoholic drink within our borders then we could no longer set Customs Duties -- at the same level per unit of drinks, rather than at an obviously-banned discriminatorily higher one -- on imports of foreign equivalents, and thus would have to give those imports a potential pricing advantage over our domestically-produced brands?

I'm not sure I understand your question -- purely my fault ... I really did have some serious house damage, so I'm a bit distracted (and looking to NS as an escape while I'm waiting for some repair quotes to come in this week). :(

Is your question, how does clause 2 change domestic taxes?

I was thinking that this clause would really say, "Hey, if you want to tax beer, fine ... do it all the same. Don't discriminate and say beer from Mikitivity will be taxed higher than beer made in town." Selfish of me, naturally! ;)

Does that help or did I miss the question entirely?

BTW I appreciate ALL the comments.

St Edmund

13-12-2007, 14:40

I'm not sure I understand your question -- purely my fault ... I really did have some serious house damage, so I'm a bit distracted (and looking to NS as an escape while I'm waiting for some repair quotes to come in this week). :(

Is your question, how does clause 2 change domestic taxes?

I was thinking that this clause would really say, "Hey, if you want to tax beer, fine ... do it all the same. Don't discriminate and say beer from Mikitivity will be taxed higher than beer made in town." Selfish of me, naturally! ;)

Does that help or did I miss the question entirely?

(OOC comment)

Sorry to hear about the house damage: I hope that it turns out to be fixable fairly quickly at a reasonable cost.

So we could still tax imports at the border, as long as that the tax levied was no greater than the duty charged on domestic production of comparable drinks? Okay, that's fine. I just wasn't sure whether you considered the term 'tariffs' as covering all customs duties & other import taxes, or only the discriminatorily protectionist ones, because I've seen it used both ways in RL.
Maybe this point could use clarification within the proposal, too?

Mikitivity

14-12-2007, 04:07

(OOC comment)

Sorry to hear about the house damage: I hope that it turns out to be fixable fairly quickly at a reasonable cost.

So we could still tax imports at the border, as long as that the tax levied was no greater than the duty charged on domestic production of comparable drinks? Okay, that's fine. I just wasn't sure whether you considered the term 'tariffs' as covering all customs duties & other import taxes, or only the discriminatorily protectionist ones, because I've seen it used both ways in RL.
Maybe this point could use clarification within the proposal, too?

Thanks for the note on the house. As it stands it was only one pane of a two-pane system, so it isn't as if my house is at risk from rain (which California has had little of this year).

And yes, your above example is exactly the concept I've had in mind. The resolution is really just trying to level the playing field by targeting the protectionist taxes, and I've used tariffs to loosely represent these.

I will make a change in the resolution to point out that terms like "duty", "tax", and "tariff" are sometimes used in different contexts, but it is the charge placed on imports that is being protected here.

Thanks!

NationStates Jolt Archive

DRAFT: Alcohol Tariff Reductions