NationStates Jolt Archive

the time is expiring! support this proposal...

Please post the text of your proposal, and provide a link.

Free Oil Market
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Venegono

Description: PREMISED that the world-wide reservoirs of oil are, for the greater part, concentrated in little areas of globe;

PREMISED that the regimes that control those areas have, for fact, the possibility to control the entire world-wide oil market;

PREMISED that nowaday do not exist any alternative form of energy;

CONVINCED that the stability of energetic supplies is an absolute necessity for the world-wide equilibrium and economic growth;

we ask you, members and delegates, to approve the present resolution:

"Free Oil Market code"

1- oil, as a natural raw material should be considered property of world humanity and nobody can encamp rights of property on it;
2- any oil reserve should be controlled by technicians of the United Nations;
3- any decision about production levels and prices of oil should be taken by the UN council;

There are many problems with this.

1. How is it free trade, given you're creating a kind of tragedy of the commons?
2. You're handing over the entire world's oil supplies to the UN, a completely unaccountable body? Ludicrous.
3. You make mention of "the UN council" - which UN council?

No.
St Edmund has some oil reserves within its territories, and sees no reason to hand those over to UN control... especially as nations controlling supplies of various other raw materials that we ourselves lack would not be obliged to surrender control of those...

No.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Some nations entire economies rely on oil. Passing this resolution would crash these economies and ruin these nations. Not to mention, if all the oil resources are controlled by one body, that constituted a monopoly, meaning no competition, and no price changes. That means the UN could racket up prices to sky-high and kill the world economy (oil has vast ranging effects, think about it, everything runs through transport, transport needs oil etc.. etc...). Or, the UN could withhold oil resources from any nation it doesn't like, or favour a nation with cheap oil. Now, this is assuming the
UN acts as a cohesive body...the UN is a coalition of nations, which means every nation gets a say in whats done with the worlds oil supply. Not, in my opinion, actually a good thing. The delegation from Dancing Bananaland refuse wholeheartedly to support this resolution.

No, absoluetly no. Titawon thinks this proposal is ridicolous. Titawon also has oil reserves of their own, and it is a driving force of Titawon's economy. Titawon also feels that this proposal infringes on the sovergnity of the individual nations. Titawon also agrees with the points made by Dancing Bananland, Dancing Bananland, and St Edmund.

Vernon McKay
United Nations Ammbassador, The Republic of Titawon

Description: PREMISED that the world-wide reservoirs of oil are, for the greater part, concentrated in little areas of globe;


Assuming that this is fact then the UN would have far less oil reserves than are held by non UN nations.. as one must assume that for any oil in the UN borders under member control there is an equal amount of it outside by ratio of member nations to non member nations.

Thus selected nations not members of the UN would still have their oil reserves and members would be going through red tape to get any oil from some UN council.. as see them spreading it out to all member nations on eqaul rations.. even if some lack any to input.. into the reserves... thus cutting short those nations that produce and provide it to the full UN.

Then by keeping cost down those nations have to find funds to keep up some place else... bad idea here..

PREMISED that nowaday do not exist any alternative form of energy;
Incorrect. There are a number of alternative energy systems. Indeed, given that you did not specify transport, one could argue that coal is an alternative energy source. Your premise is flawed.

Had you instead said 'PREMISED that nowadays there is no readily-available alternative energy source for automobiles, buses, trucks or aeroplanes', you'd be fine. (You can't just say transport, as few if any trains run off petrol. Most are electric, while some are steam-driven.)

Oh, and can I just add that using 'premise' in this way, while accepted by dictionaries, strikes me as extremely ugly English. You could instead use 'BELIEVING' or 'UNDERSTANDING', or even 'PREMISING', which to me just looks better.

Your premise is flawed. as in your following comments here
Had you instead said 'PREMISED that nowadays there is no readily-available alternative energy source for automobiles, buses, trucks or aeroplanes', you'd be fine. (You can't just say transport, as few if any trains run off petrol. Most are electric, while some are steam-driven.)
As a train runs on say steam or electric so can the others.. We forget this is NS... thus if they have trains functioning best on electrict then one could assume that the others are running equaly as well as them on it.. someplace in NS..

Thus all we need do is get it passed on to those who don't have it and can afford to pay for it... from those who do have it.. all provided they desire the introduction of any of these in their national borders.

Illegal, Illogical and wonderfully Paradoxical.

Consider the argument, "Oil, as a natural raw material should be considered property of world humanity and nobody can encamp rights of property on it." In the first place, world humanity is outside the jurisdiction of the UN. The UN can only propose resolutions binding on the member states of the UN, and can not in any way be said to represent or speak for "wolrd humanity."

No UN resolution can legislate or have any effect on non UN members.

Free Oil Market
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Venegono

Description: PREMISED that the world-wide reservoirs of oil are, for the greater part, concentrated in little areas of globe;

You base this on what sir? Divining?

PREMISED that the regimes that control those areas have, for fact, the possibility to control the entire world-wide oil market;

Premise all you like, you still haven't proven your first point.

PREMISED that nowaday do not exist any alternative form of energy;

Really? I think we have a resolution being discussed at the moment which completely contradicts this statement. Did you happen to notice it?

CONVINCED that the stability of energetic supplies is an absolute necessity for the world-wide equilibrium and economic growth;

At last, a concordance.

we ask you, members and delegates, to approve the present resolution:

"Free Oil Market code"

1- oil, as a natural raw material should be considered property of world humanity and nobody can encamp rights of property on it;
2- any oil reserve should be controlled by technicians of the United Nations;
3- any decision about production levels and prices of oil should be taken by the UN council;

Aside from obvious illegalities, some small questions:

1). Oil maybe a right, but what about national rights? Or the rights not to recklessly extract a polluting energy source? Or the rights of people who may live near a major oil deposit not to have dug up on the say so of the U.N. without proper consultation.

2). Why technicians?

3). Why U.N. technicians? I've nothing against the U.N. controlling the oil supplies of the world per se, but it just doesn't seem very efficient.

4). A central U.N. council with no delegation. Sounds like a recipe for chaos.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

1- oil, as a natural raw material should be considered property of world humanity and nobody can encamp rights of property on it;

Absolutely not! Cluichstan's oil belongs to Cluichstan. Plus, the blanket statement that natural raw materials belong to the whole world would include not only oil, but also gold, silver, uranium, timber, coal, natural gas, water, and everything else that isn't man-made. I hate to be tactless, but PISS OFF!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I hate to be tactless
Since when?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

--snip--

1). Oil maybe a right, but what about national rights?

--snip--
*faints*

Since when?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Shush, you. :p

*faints*

Don't worry, it was a rhetorical point. I haven't gone over to the dark side yet.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Shush, you. :p
You know someone had to say it.:D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

As a train runs on say steam or electric so can the others.. We forget this is NS... thus if they have trains functioning best on electrict then one could assume that the others are running equaly as well as them on it.. someplace in NS..

Zeldon, I was speaking from an entirely OOC viewpoint, as I believe the author was as well. Had I meant to be taken IC, my (Darsomir's) post would have been signed 'Johannes, UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia'. It would also have been written quite differently.
In the Real World, there is no readily-available energy source for the transport I mentioned. Yes, there are electric cars, buses and trucks, but they are not yet anywhere near common. As to planes, there is no possible way you could run a plane on steam, and there is not yet an electrical engine in common usage capable of powering aeroplane flight.

Please read responses for indication of IC/OOC in the future, and do not assume that 'young' nations don't understand the slightest thing about the NS world.

The author addresses a relevant and important problem. Of course, the proposed solution is completely illogical, but there are alternatives. Has anyone ever thought of a UN competition authority, forbidding international cartels and price manipulation?