NationStates Jolt Archive

Anti-Privatization Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Cobainistic Freedom

Description: The United Nations,

REALIZING that massive privately owned businesses lead to great income stratification;

ALARMED that the amount of nations that support privately owned enterprises is staggering;

FURTHER REALIZING that businesses could be run by national governments in a way that does not promote income inequality;

NOTING that past implementations of this economic model have resulted in catastrophic failures due to totalitarian government styling, not the economic system in itself;

BELIEVING that if implemented on an international scale, de-privatization of businesses could be more successful;

DECLARES:

a) that all member nations' governments take control of their businesses within 5 years of this resolution's passing. Nations that have already fulfilled this requirement may ignore the rest of the following terms.

b) that during the time period described in term "a", member nations' governments enforce a 50% general wage raise throughout all industries;

c) that during the time period described in term "a", member nations' governments increase income taxes for those in the top 10% by 25 percent. Nations that do not implement income taxes are now required to do so.

Illegal and outrageous. Ideological bans are illegal, you cannot ban capitalism.

This is illegal as a ban on capitalism. Sorry. In any case, privatisation of industry is probably best left as a national decision.

Perhaps you could do something dealing with transnational corporations, and controlling their influence?

Complete government control over businesses is as bad as too little control. Essential industries in my country are often a conglomerate of public and private to balance the problem something called a PPC-- Public Private Consortium. It is usually the government and two private companies acting to form the consortium. I cannot support this view it is not economically balanced.

Illegal and outrageous. Ideological bans are illegal, you cannot ban capitalism.

There is nothing illegal about this proposition. Not once does it explicitly ban Capitalism.

There is nothing illegal about this proposition. Not once does it explicitly ban Capitalism.
The fact that it implicitly bans capitalism would be where it falls foul of the rules.

There is nothing illegal about this proposition. Not once does it explicitly ban Capitalism.

Yeah, whatever. Submit it and find out.

Totally Illegal. Wouldn't have the support of Wyldtree even if it was legal.

Yeah, whatever. Submit it and find out.Too late (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=privatization). ;)

SWEET FLAMING A**CRACKERS!!! Jillian!!! Hide the kids and get the guns! Anti Capitalism is running amuck again!!!*dives under desk, and draws his Colt 1911 gov.*

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

I find it hard to believe that the authour put the time into even considering this proposal, let alone writing it. I'm all up for eviscerating the proletariat, but this is ridiculous, you can't ban private enterprise in every member state, that's blatantly illegal. If anything, any number of daily issues can do the same.

The fact that it implicitly bans capitalism would be where it falls foul of the rules.

Since when are implications grounds for removal? We will find out soon enough just how illegal it may or may not be. It will take favor to socialists and communists, at least.

It will take favor to socialists and communists, at least.
How? Their economies will already be nationalised.

Your proposal outlaws capitalism. It. Is. Illegal.

How is it illegal? Would you like to quote for me where it says that Capitalism is banned? Because it's not in there.

It will be beneficial to communists/socialists because they are part of a system which they favor and therefor want to see on a larger scale. If you like an ideal, do you not want to promote it?

How? Their economies will already be nationalised.

Your proposal outlaws capitalism. It. Is. Illegal.

Why don't we all lay back, get some popcorn, and watch it burn. :)

Look. Your proposal bans capitalism. That it does not say "this bans capitalism" has no relevance to its substantive effect, which is an ideological ban, and which is illegal.

Why don't we all lay back, get some popcorn, and watch it burn. :)
Indeed. No sense in even arguing this one.

A bit cocky, no? In any case, we will see.

A bit cocky, no? In any case, we will see.
Cocky? You mean because we've read the rules reguarding UN proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and obviously you haven't. No, we're not cocky, we're just right.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

a) that all member nations' governments take control of their businesses within 5 years of this resolution's passing. Nations that have already fulfilled this requirement may ignore the rest of the following terms.This is a de facto ban of capitalism. Ideological ban; illegal.

c) that during the time period described in term "a", member nations' governments increase income taxes for those in the top 10% by 25 percent. Nations that do not implement income taxes are now required to do so.Illegal; Game Mechanics. UN Resolutions cannot force an adjustment of tax rates beyond any effects generated by the code of the Resolution itself. By way of example, The Hack's tax rates have been cut so many times, they are technically negative. A tax boost that would take a normal nation from 5% to 100% wouldn't be enough to move me from 0%. Therefore, clause 'c' cannot increase the tax rate on the top 10% of earners. Furthermore, this would also be impossible in nations with 100% tax rates or nations that have a flat tax.

Good ol' Hack.:) The drink is on me.http://www.comedyonline.co.uk/comedy-images/dave-allen.jpg

http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2002-09-09%20Sep%20Four%20wheel%20drive%204WD%20accident%20crush%20car%20540.JPG

Ah, I hadn't even noticed clause (c). That would also contradict Representation in Taxation, which has been ruled to protect income taxes.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Too late (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=privatization). ;)Try clicking my E-Z link now. :p

Anyone else in the Antarctic Oasis up for an invasion? C'mon...I know you are... :cool:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/chechnya.jpg

COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU

It was only a matter of time. :D

Anyone else in the Antarctic Oasis up for an invasion? C'mon...I know you are... :cool:

*Sen Sulla take a swig of Wild Turkey straight from the bottle*

"Do you really need to ask that question!":p "We're always game for invasion. Good Gravy man, the naval Dolphins are getting bored and restless."

We already do this to a point in xenoland, but see NO reason to force everyone else to as well.

Not only is this banning capitalism, but it also forces communism, which Pythogria is against. (OOC:I'm kind of against it in real life too.)

*Sen Sulla take a swig of Wild Turkey straight from the bottle*

"Do you really need to ask that question!":p "We're always game for invasion. Good Gravy man, the naval Dolphins are getting bored and restless."


Then by all means, my good friend, send 'em in. Send 'em in. :cool:

Then by all means, my good friend, send 'em in. Send 'em in. :cool:

I would post what Admiral of the Red Nolly said when I informed him of the invasion...however since there may be pregnant women and impressionable young children present I must refrain. She used words that were most unpleasant.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla