NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=developed

General Assembly of the United Nations,

REFFERRING to Section I of Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States) in order to better illustrate this resolution,

DISTURBED by the many UN nations which have overlooked and directly circumvented the authority of previous UN legislation through a recent increase in free trade initiatives,

FURTHER DISTURBED by the adverse effects of free trade in a many number of UN nations, which includes the exploitation of labor in many underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheap labor in poorer nations, and massive job loss in developed nations, which has been proven to lead to increased rates of crime, poverty, and drug abuse,

DETERMINED, through this resolution, to enact legislation which can lend a helping hand to those displaced through free trade and outline an effective plan to advance the economies of individual nations,

MANDATES the following:

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any previous UN legislation;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact embargoes on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations, given these embargoes are not forbidden by any previous UN legislation;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering their nation, given these taxation policies are not forbidden by any previous UN legislation.

AFFIRMING that the option to trade freely with another nation should be left to the discretion of each nation engaged or desiring to engage in such actions, and that this legislation may be invoked by individual nations which seek not to participate in future UN free trade initiatives,

ENCOURAGING the practice of “fair trade”, which is defined as an equitable and fair relationship between the marketers in one nation to the producers in another, actively working to provide the labor of producer nations with livable wages, hours, benefits, and opportunities for advancement,

HEREBY enacts Developed Economic Advancement.

Co-authored by Tarmsden

Illegal; contradicts at least 4 resolutions.

EDIT: Just spotted another one! Five resolutions. So yeah, this isn't going anywhere.

Please provide links to all five.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=32
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=129
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=153
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=154
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=157

Better get repealing, old chap!

As you'd probably have guessed, we're in full support of this. To avoid contradictions, simply say something to the extent of:

"1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any previous legislation.

The fact is, many resolutions have been anti-tariff in the last few months. We're not going to repeal them all; just want to protect any further tariff-hating. :rolleyes:

If you need help with TG campaigning, we're up for it!

If it is proposed, reaches querom, and becomes a resolution, it ceases to be illegal.
Well no shit. You missed the part in the middle where the mods delete it for contradiction, though.

The fact is, many resolutions have been anti-tariff in the last few months. We're not going to repeal them all; just want to protect any further tariff-hating.
And you still have not explained your objection to tariff removal.

Thank you very kindly for your support, Jey. And I have updated the draft proposal, so there will be no need to delete it. :)

And you still have not explained your objection to tariff removal.

Tariffs are a huge asset to our nation's economy. So much money is gained through tariffs in Jey's constant international trade that removing them would be an amazing blow to our economy. As the tariffs are the exact same for every land outside of Jey, even all 3 of Jey's Territorial Areas, we see absolutely no reason to remove them in the name of "free trade".

Tariffs are a huge asset to our nation's economy. So much money is gained through tariffs in Jey's constant international trade that removing them would be an amazing blow to our economy. As the tariffs are the exact same for every land outside of Jey, even all 3 of Jey's Territorial Areas, we see absolutely no reason to remove them in the name of "free trade".
You keep trying to say they're "exact[ly the] same", but they're not: they're different for Jey, and for Gruenberg. Why not simply enact a sales tax: that would be equitable for all nations.

Tariffs are a huge asset to our nation's economy. So much money is gained through tariffs in Jey's constant international trade that removing them would be an amazing blow to our economy. As the tariffs are the exact same for every land outside of Jey, even all 3 of Jey's Territorial Areas, we see absolutely no reason to remove them in the name of "free trade".

Tariffs are an excuse to protect domestic manufacturers from competition. Sithya is an export dependent country and we resent when governments interfere in honest competition, which provides choice for the customer.

Anyone imposing tariffs on our goods will receive the same in return. The Lord Protector is also looking at imposing capital gains taxes on any investments made in countries on our "unfree trade" list by our citizens. Normally we do not impose such taxes at all.

You keep trying to say they're "exact[ly the] same", but they're not: they're different for Jey, and for Gruenberg. Why not simply enact a sales tax: that would be equitable for all nations.

Sales taxes are already in force. What we desire from our tariffs is more along the lines of an import tax, which remains constant throughout. Even imports from our territories are taxed the same amount.

Sales taxes are already in force. What we desire from our tariffs is more along the lines of an import tax, which remains constant throughout.
Again, you're not saying why you need one: just that you have one. Why do you need an import tax?

Even imports from our territories are taxed the same amount.
Why do you keep saying this? Do you think it's relevant? It's not.

"Mister, why can't I drink from this fountain?"

"Oh don't worry, although you niggers can't drink from it, we don't let the Indians drink here either."

Oh, I see. How fair.

Why do you keep saying this? Do you think it's relevant? It's not.

"Mister, why can't I drink from this fountain?"

"Oh don't worry, although you niggers can't drink from it, we don't let the Indians drink here either."

Oh, I see. How fair.

Comparing segregation to import taxes? Taxing people equally does not equal denying rights based on race.

Why does anyone have any taxes? To get money. We use import taxes to get money from imported items. How shocking.

Equating segregation to import taxes?
Yes. Both are racial. There is no reason you tax imports from Gruenberg, but not Jevian products, except for the country of origin.

Don't be shy: remember, Gruenberg prides itself on its devotion to racism. We applaud your efforts in this regard, although we are ourselves free trade advocates.

Why does anyone have any taxes? To get money. We use import taxes to get money from imported items. How shocking.
It's going to annoy you, but I ask again: why? Why do you need to get money from imported items, when you already do from sales tax? Furthermore, why not simply raise sales taxes on Jevian goods? Then you'd make MORE money!

Yes. Both are racial. There is no reason you tax imports from Gruenberg, but not Jevian products, except for the country of origin.

Every single import is taxed the same. If Jey somehow defies logic and imports an item to itself, then it will be taxed the same. This is what a fair import tax is.

It's going to annoy you, but I ask again: why? Why do you need to get money from imported items, when you already do from sales tax? Furthermore, why not simply raise sales taxes on Jevian goods? Then you'd make MORE money!

That really doesn't matter. We have discussed that possibility, though. But, what we are arguing for is the principle and the ability to have import taxes.

OOC: Perhaps this is an IC problem. Jey, you are making absolutely no sense to me. Could you perhaps explain a bit more thoroughly? You seem to be saying the sole purpose of the import tax is to make money. But what's not clear is why that money is needed, or why it isn't applied to Jevian goods - which would make you more money.

Usually, the point of an import tax is as a protectionist measure - to protect home industries against foreign competition, for example. I'm new to it being viewed simply as a source of revenue.

If, however, this is simply a PR spin from the Jevian UN Office, then I understand.

Protectionist measures are enacted not because of racism, that's some of the worst free trade propaganda I've heard in my entire life.

They are enacted to KEEP PEOPLE WORKING. You start buying into the free trade ideology, suddenly unemployment in your country is on the rise because you can't compete with dirt cheap labor in foreign countries. Perfect example is the US. Over 36 million jobs have been lost since the early 80's (y'know, around the time when the US became the world's lone free trade pioneer). And the only reason the Clinton administration bought into it was because they believed they could bring to the people of China democracy through a neoliberalized economy.

Well, it looks like mission accompished there, right? :rolleyes:

And the only reason the Clinton administration bought into it was because they believed they could bring to the people of China democracy through a neoliberalized economy.

Well, it looks like mission accompished there, right? :rolleyes:That's interesting; I never knew about our free-trade agreement with China. :rolleyes:

Protectionist measures are enacted not because of racism, that's some of the worst free trade propaganda I've heard in my entire life.

They are enacted to KEEP PEOPLE WORKING. You start buying into the free trade ideology, suddenly unemployment in your country is on the rise because you can't compete with dirt cheap labor in foreign countries. Perfect example is the US. Over 36 million jobs have been lost since the early 80's (y'know, around the time when the US became the world's lone free trade pioneer). And the only reason the Clinton administration bought into it was because they believed they could bring to the people of China democracy through a neoliberalized economy.

Well, it looks like mission accompished there, right?
OOC: Well, I'd prefer this to IC examples if possible, because we're roleplaying here: I'm not keen to defend OOC policies about which my opinion is irrelevant.

IC: But, they are racist. They're not enacted to keep people working: they're enacted to keep people IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY working. Fuck everyone else. The fact you regard these people as "dirt" should be evidence enough of your convictions.

Over 36 million jobs have been lost since the early 80's (y'know, around the time when the US became the world's lone free trade pioneer). And the only reason the Clinton administration bought into it was because they believed they could bring to the people of China democracy through a neoliberalized economy.

That's interesting, but there are lots of things that can cause short term unemployment. Do you know how many people became unemployed as a result of the automobile for example? Consider blacksmiths for example.

Currently the US buys a lot of cotton T shirts from China. Guess where China buys the cotton to make the T shirts? The US.

Are there problems with free trade, especially when one nation uses one standard and another nation uses a lower standard? You bet. Does this mean I am against free trade among NS UN Nations? No, because instead of throwing out the free trade baby along with the bathwater of unfair working conditions, we can instead work towards imposing common minimum standard of working conditions to ensure a level playing field by every NS UN nation, something we can't do in the real world because, frankly, the RW UN is a toothless tiger.

Actually such an approach has a secret advantage. Normally people who want to avoid UN resolutions that they really don't like can leave the UN. The problem with nations that try to leave the UN because they don't like minimum working conditions is that in doing so they also leave the UN free trade agreements that they want to exploit, so they might decide to grin and bear it.

MANDATES the following:

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any previous legislation;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact embargoes on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations, given these embargoes are not forbidden by any previous legislation;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering their nation.
Um, isn't this a blocker against all future legislation that would abolish tariffs?
I'm confused, normally everyone would have been up in arms by now about this...

OOC: Well, I'd prefer this to IC examples if possible, because we're roleplaying here: I'm not keen to defend OOC policies about which my opinion is irrelevant.

Why should this be kept IC or OOC? The best examples why free trade doesn't work is in the OOC world, why wouldn't I bring that up?

IC: But, they are racist. They're not enacted to keep people working: they're enacted to keep people IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY working. Fuck everyone else. The fact you regard these people as "dirt" should be evidence enough of your convictions.

No, it isn't racist. I detest the thought of anyone with half a brain in their head considering it even remotely racist. In fact, I could argue that YOU are the racist for believing in a system that forces laborers to work for substandard wages.

What sounds more racist, a system that exploits the poorer so that the upper crust gets even richer, all the while people in another nation lose their jobs, or a system that safeguards the employed and provides a sense of security to laborers?

Also, it is not the job of national governments to give a damn about another nation's labor force, be that labor force reside in India or England. That is why we have national governments, so that there is an authority that keeps a sovereign people's best interests at heart.

Why should this be kept IC or OOC? The best examples why free trade doesn't work is in the OOC world, why wouldn't I bring that up?Your "examples" are irrelevant and moot. The United States doesn't even have a free-trade agreement with China, so how can you cite it as a failure? We here in the NS world do not necessarily extol free trade as a means of exporting democracy, either. Not bound to UN free-trade mandates, the Federal Republic actually manipulates free-trade arrangements in order to reward despotic regimes it likes (Cluichstan, Gruenberg, The Palentine, Kivisto, Yelda) and punish those it doesn't (The Eternal Kawaii).

Why should this be kept IC or OOC? The best examples why free trade doesn't work is in the OOC world, why wouldn't I bring that up?
OOC: Belarum, do you not understand the concept of roleplaying? If you want to discuss Free Trade in the OOC world, go to the General Forum. If you want to discuss your roleplay proposal, be prepared to debate ICly. I have no objection to your incorporating RL evidence into your arguments, but I am not going to sit here and debate RL world politics - that's not what this forum is for.

IC:
No, it isn't racist. I detest the thought of anyone with half a brain in their head considering it even remotely racist. In fact, I could argue that YOU are the racist for believing in a system that forces laborers to work for substandard wages.
Um, how does that work? Firstly, where did I say labourers should work for "substandard workers"? Secondly, where have I ever referenced nationality of worker?

Here's my view: if workers in Gruenberg can do something better than workers in Belarum, then it makes sense that the workers in Gruenberg do it. It's a principle called "specialisation". You keep mentioning fears that factory labour will move to poorer nations; ok. But Belarum is a developed nation: in sectors like IT, Retail, and other service and tertiary-level jobs, you're obviously going to outcompete them. So you attract the business under a free trade exchange. Does that not make sense?

What sounds more racist, a system that exploits the poorer so that the upper crust gets even richer, all the while people in another nation lose their jobs, or a system that safeguards the employed and provides a sense of security to laborers?
Heh-heh, I don't think you know what you're talking about. A system that exploits the poor? Well, I don't really see how free trade "exploits the poor": perhaps you'd care to demonstrate? Furthermore, protectionism does exploit the poor. You say it "safeguards the employed": thus screwing over countries with high unemployment rates. It doesn't provide any security to workers, because rather than having their jobs because, you know, they're good at them, they have their jobs because their government enacts protectionist measures. That is massively racist.

You yourself portray your nation thus:
Like many market economies, however, Belarum runs trade defecits with poorer nations where labor is cheaper, but the government is working to raise tariffs and protect the domestic economy
So fuck poorer nations, right?

Also, it is not the job of national governments to give a damn about another nation's labor force, be that labor force reside in India or England. That is why we have national governments, so that there is an authority that keeps a sovereign people's best interests at heart.
Quite. And you might notice, this is the UN. It's not a national government: it's an international organization.

But, following on from your point, we can repeal The 40 Hour Workweek, can we? After all, it's not your job to give a damn about our labour force...

hahaha, I had the perfect response to you Gruenberg, but I wasn't logged in. What a shame, so I'm going to remember my words the best I can.

You, in short, are a massive fool. Have you realized that Social Justice in this game is diametrically opposed to Free Trade? I'm sure you have, because you been slinging around insults that I'm a racist this whole time, all the while trying to clean up the image of free trade as a way to help the world. Well, you can't. Because free trade is a system which benefits only the upper crust and fucks everyone else over.

For as long as I have been alive, free trade has ben shitting on the employed in one nation and spitting in the hand that it shakes with others. Free trade doesn't follow the nations labor that can "make the best goods", it follows the labor that COSTS THE LEAST. If you don't realize this, you're a fucking dunderhead. Don't bullshit people with this idea that free trade is the answer to all our problems, because it isn't. It IS THE PROBLEM. So why don't you go pimp out a system that cowtows to the management of multi-national corporations elsewhere, you biggoted two-faced liar.

I'm not Gruenberg, but I'm going to respond to this anyway, because I completely disagree.
You, in short, are a massive fool. Have you realized that Social Justice in this game is diametrically opposed to Free Trade?
OOC: Ahem. They are not "diametrically opposed". Yes, they have opposite stat effects, but not actual effects. The opposite of free trade is protectionism, not social justice. Social justice refers to improving equality. Free trade refers to increasing trade between nations. It's just a coincidence that one improves economies while the other hurts them
I'm sure you have, because you been slinging around insults that I'm a racist this whole time, all the while trying to clean up the image of free trade as a way to help the world. Well, you can't. Because free trade is a system which benefits only the upper crust and fucks everyone else over.
No. Protectionism is a system that benefits only the upper crust of nations and hurts everyone else. Free trade means that jobs can get outsourced to other nations, yes. But it gives companies the ability to trade more, meaning more goods and services are being moved, meaning that the people making those goods and services benefit, meaning that they can hire more workers. In other words, in free trade, everyone benefits. There are other reasons as well.

I think I've responded well enough to your last paragraph in my previous one, although most of your last paragraph is a series of insults directed at Gruenberg.

OOC:
You, in short, are a massive fool. Have you realized that Social Justice in this game is diametrically opposed to Free Trade?
This is not true. To the best of my knowledge:

Free Trade affects only Economic Freedoms.
Social Justice affects Economic Freedoms, but also affects Social Welfare and Healthcare spending.

So there is a difference.

And, since you've rejected every attempt to keep this a relevant IC debate, I'll stick to OOC.
Because free trade is a system which benefits only the upper crust and fucks everyone else over.
Not really. For example, free trade means the abolition of subsidies. There are many developed nations whose agriculture industries are dependent on these large subsidies: in using them, they quash the ability of developing nations to compete. For example, you're saying this scenario doesn't favour the rich? (http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/bp61_sugar_dumping.htm)

For as long as I have been alive, free trade has ben shitting on the employed in one nation and spitting in the hand that it shakes with others. Free trade doesn't follow the nations labor that can "make the best goods", it follows the labor that COSTS THE LEAST. If you don't realize this, you're a fucking dunderhead. Don't bullshit people with this idea that free trade is the answer to all our problems, because it isn't. It IS THE PROBLEM.
I don't think free trade is the answer to all our problems. I just think it's a whole lot better than mercantilism, which favours rich nations who can afford massive subsidies. You keep going on about employment, but you don't see to realize protectionism prevents employment from developing in poorer nations, where unemployment is highest, and where employment is most needed.

Furthermore, some of the examples you've provided haven't been of actual free trade. The US still uses farming subsidies, still refuses to regulate Microsoft, still has tried to enact tariffs (for example, when it instituted steel tariffs against Canada). That's not free trade. You're not criticising free trade: you're criticising fucked up economics. And I couldn't agree more.

But we're here to talk about actual, real free trade. The NS universe gives as an opportunity to implement. And you're rejecting it...why? Is this some personal axe about losing your job? Your inability to separate OOC and IC would seem to indicate there is something more here than just your roleplayed policies.

So why don't you go pimp out a system that cowtows to the management of multi-national corporations elsewhere, you biggoted two-faced liar.
Calm down.

Free trade in general opposes transnational corporations where they establish monopolies: it's a distortion of the market. None of the principles of free trade work if there are monopolies in play. This is why most free trade advocates would favour monopolies & mergers commissions, and anti-trust laws - myself included. How is that favouring TNCs?

Now, I am no longer going to debate free trade in the real world. If you want to continue to do so, go to the General forum, and start a thread: I'll gladly post in it. But this is the UN forum, and I plan on treating it as such.

This is an absolute disgrace of a forum. How dare you come in here, flinging around swears and accusing each other of racism instead of maturely debating a critical issue facing the real, and NS worlds? I know it's OOC, but this kind of talk would never stand in the real world. Have some respect for each other and tolerate each other's differences, won't you? It's a crying shame, and I almost regret posting here because I am so disgusted at this total disrespect of one another.

This debate should be focusing on something other than accusations of racism and examples of real world free trade. Let's deal with NS, shall we?

This proposal is a great call for a strong set of rights guaranteed to every nation. The most important here are about tariffs and import taxes, generally referred to as "protectionism", as they protect domestic industry by making foreign-made goods more expensive within a nation and thus making it more difficult for a nation's companies to efficiently outsource jobs. Some nations argue that this is a racist or ethnocentric move. I, for one, do not. Many nations choose to enter into free trade agreements or "most favored nation" status with another nation, which eliminates import taxes between the involved nations. Some argue that this promotes peace and helps nations all over the world. I, for one, do not. Finally, some nations enter into fair trade agreements with other nations, which emphasize that farmers and workers shall be paid in an amount relative to the amount of work they perform when creating goods sold overseas. Some argue that this promotes social justice, equality and fairness. I, for one, do.

The argument over free trade vs. protectionism is one that is steeped in racial and class connotations, as well as one that deals intensely with one's economic conditions. For example, poorer nations entering into free trade agreements with richer nations can suffer, as their workers are employed by foreign corporations who pay them at low wages and make them work in poor conditions. Certain companies use free trade conditions in poorer nations to employ workers, including children, in dirty and unsafe environments. This can harm a poorer nation's economy for years to come, not to mention the human costs of such an agreement.

Tarmsden co-authored the proposal that this thread deals with because we believe that every nation must decide for itself whether protectionism, free trade or fair trade agreements are best for it. We want to make sure that nations can deal with internal unemployment and industrial weakness if they want to, and that other nations can deal with reaping the rewards of free trade if they want to. Therefore, without any mention of racism or classism, we sincerely believe that this resolution would secure a set of important national rights so as to prevent abuse of third-world workers and farmers by foreign corporations and governments. If you disagree with our stance on free trade, that's fine. We simply ask that you give us the right to set our own policies here, as we believe that national governments, for the time being, can best address the problems faced by its laboring peoples.

This debate should be focusing on something other than accusations of racism and examples of real world free trade. Let's deal with NS, shall we?
OOC: I quite agree. Perhaps you could rein in your buddy?

IC:
This proposal is a great call for a strong set of rights guaranteed to every nation. The most important here are about tariffs and import taxes, generally referred to as "protectionism", as they protect domestic industry by making foreign-made goods more expensive within a nation and thus making it more difficult for a nation's companies to efficiently outsource jobs. Some nations argue that this is a racist or ethnocentric move. I, for one, do not. Many nations choose to enter into free trade agreements or "most favored nation" status with another nation, which eliminates import taxes between the involved nations. Some argue that this promotes peace and helps nations all over the world. I, for one, do not. Finally, some nations enter into fair trade agreements with other nations, which emphasize that farmers and workers shall be paid in an amount relative to the amount of work they perform when creating goods sold overseas. Some argue that this promotes social justice, equality and fairness. I, for one, do.
You keep saying "I, for one, do [not]". You're not providing any reasons why you think that.

"Some people say murder is wrong. I, for one, do not".

Let's allow murder! He for one doesn't think it wrong, so we must let him do it!

Explain your reasoning, please, or it's going to be very hard to achieve the sort of debate you're aiming for. Protectionism is undoubtedly racist: it's based on a belief that only workers within one's own country have a right to jobs. Your pal keeps ranting about how jobs in one particular country are lost: doesn't seem too keen on mentioning that they're created in another country. Specialisation means that regions adapt to represent their labour capabilities efficiently; protectionism means areas that aren't especially receptive to certain sectors are forced into keeping them up. It creates a false sense of competition. Why should someone's job opportunities be dictated solely by where they work?

And if you could demonstrate how free exchange of goods does not facilitate diplomatic, peaceful exchange of ideas, I'd be much obliged.

The argument over free trade vs. protectionism is one that is steeped in racial and class connotations, as well as one that deals intensely with one's economic conditions. For example, poorer nations entering into free trade agreements with richer nations can suffer, as their workers are employed by foreign corporations who pay them at low wages and make them work in poor conditions. Certain companies use free trade conditions in poorer nations to employ workers, including children, in dirty and unsafe environments. This can harm a poorer nation's economy for years to come, not to mention the human costs of such an agreement.
Child labour is banned in UN countries; the Workplace Safety Act is also legally binding, so those fears can easily be allayed. Next?

Tarmsden co-authored the proposal that this thread deals with because we believe that every nation must decide for its
elf whether protectionism, free trade or fair trade agreements are best for it. We want to make sure that nations can deal with internal unemployment and industrial weakness if they want to, and that other nations can deal with reaping the rewards of free trade if they want to. Therefore, without any mention of racism or classism, we sincerely believe that this resolution would secure a set of important national rights so as to prevent abuse of third-world workers and farmers by foreign corporations and governments. If you disagree with our stance on free trade, that's fine. We simply ask that you give us the right to set our own policies here, as we believe that national governments, for the time being, can best address the problems faced by its laboring peoples.
Here's where I disagree strongly. This proposal doesn't "prevent abuse of third-world workers and farmers": it grandfathers it into binding UN law that the UN can never attempt to alleviate abuse of third-world workers. This protects subsidies in developed nations, yet every study known shows such measures completely gut the ability of developing industries to advance. You say you're protecting the third world, but you're not. First world nations are always going to have more money in subsidies to dole out, and you're protecting their right to do so. The use of protectionist measures is an abuse of workers and farmers by foreign governments.

Gruenberg, two quick notes before I respond to the meat of your arguments:

1) My ranting about the language and immaturity here was aimed at Belarum AND yourself. You two were going at it in a manner I would consider borderline psychotic. Take a breather. This is a game, remember.

2) Please read my entire post before responding to parts of it. My arguments for why "I, for one, do (not)" were found in the next paragraph. I was attempting to cover basic points in an introductory manner before going into persuasive details. Thanks.

Now, for the real meat of this thing...

You continually argue that protectionism is a racist tactic. However, the same argument can be made about free trade. For example, let's say we have a large, wealthy uni-cultural nation, and a small, poor, uni-cultural nation. If they enter into a free trade agreement, the big, rich country's corporations employ thousands of workers in the poorer nation at a below-minimum wage rate, as the poor nation has no minimum wage. Maybe there's a race issue, maybe not. Now, let's examine another possibility. We have two nations with developing economies or even strong economies, who are both multi-cultural and multi-racial. They set high import taxes due to their leftist economies, or maybe they just want to see near-100% employment at home, rather than being more active in foreign trade. No reason to believe there's a race issue there. Bottom line: both free trade and protectionism CAN be racist, given certain conditions. Most things can be if used wrongly.

Good points about the Child Protection Act and the Workplace Safety Act. Totally forgot about those.

With regards to your argument that protectionism always "guts" an economy, that's really not true. Let's say we have a recently independent nation whose former colonial master is very powerful. They need to build their own industries and get on their own feet so they have self-reliance. Real independence can't really come as long as they are still dependent on the old "fatherland" for goods. Tariffs may be needed to help them. Also, let's imagine we have a nation recently ravaged by a savage civil war, in desperate need of both economic recovery and reconciliation. They set high tariffs, using the money to establish home-grown industries where there was recently burnt farmland and employing thousands who were once economically disadvantaged or even disenfranchised in national development programs. With free trade, wouldn't another nation or foreign corporation take advantage of the situation as a source for cheap labor? (OOC: Both examples are taken from America. One is from the period immediately following the American Revolution, when Hamiltonian tariffs helped create early industries independent of the British. The other is from the period immediately following the Civil War, when Republican tariffs helped get farming and economic development jumpstarted in the South, and gave blacks a chance at some level of economic freedom.)

The bottom line here is, free trade can be quite beneficial for some nations, but potentially very harmful for others. The UN really doesn't have the right to tell us what kind of an economy we can have, as long as it isn't determined to be overy offensive or discriminatory, or very harmful to people. There is no compelling reason to believe that a protectionist system is.

You continually argue that protectionism is a racist tactic. However, the same argument can be made about free trade. For example, let's say we have a large, wealthy uni-cultural nation, and a small, poor, uni-cultural nation. If they enter into a free trade agreement, the big, rich country's corporations employ thousands of workers in the poorer nation at a below-minimum wage rate, as the poor nation has no minimum wage. Maybe there's a race issue, maybe not.
Where is the race issue? Because they're providing employment in another nation? Oh dear Wena, the bastards.

Now, let's examine another possibility. We have two nations with developing economies or even strong economies, who are both multi-cultural and multi-racial. They set high import taxes due to their leftist economies, or maybe they just want to see near-100% employment at home, rather than being more active in foreign trade. No reason to believe there's a race issue there.
See my bolding? But I see where you're going with the "multi-racial" provision. Ok. So "nationalist" might be a better term. It's still classifying someone's worth based solely on their nationality; it's still a deplorable form of discrimination.

Bottom line: both free trade and protectionism CAN be racist, given certain conditions. Most things can be if used wrongly.
Well you haven't provided any examples of where free trade can be racist, but going with this, you're saying this is if they're used wrongly? Ah, that's very different. I won't defend wrongful applications of free trade, that aren't truly free: what I'm discussing here is real free trade. And I think that real - not wrongly used - protectionism can be racist. You haven't made a comparable argument for free trade.

With regards to your argument that protectionism always "guts" an economy, that's really not true. Let's say we have a recently independent nation whose former colonial master is very powerful. They need to build their own industries and get on their own feet so they have self-reliance. Real independence can't really come as long as they are still dependent on the old "fatherland" for goods. Tariffs may be needed to help them.
Why not? You're saying this old fatherland can outcompete them in every single industry? If they have little infrastructure, then labour-intensive sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture will still probably be more competitive. Furthermore, it rather depends on one's definition of "independence". Mutualistic trade relations tend to be beneficial to both parties. They need a degree of self-reliance; doesn't mean they need to fully stifle investment, as tariffs often do.

Also, let's imagine we have a nation recently ravaged by a savage civil war, in desperate need of both economic recovery and reconciliation. They set high tariffs, using the money to establish home-grown industries where there was recently burnt farmland and employing thousands who were once economically disadvantaged or even disenfranchised in national development programs. With free trade, wouldn't another nation or foreign corporation take advantage of the situation as a source for cheap labor?
That last line intrigues me. What exactly do you mean by "take advantage"? If you mean "provide jobs", I don't really see that as taking advantage.

The bottom line here is, free trade can be quite beneficial for some nations, but potentially very harmful for others.
So can protectionism. Call it a draw and chuck out this argument?

The UN really doesn't have the right to tell us what kind of an economy we can have, as long as it isn't determined to be overy offensive or discriminatory, or very harmful to people. There is no compelling reason to believe that a protectionist system is.
Protectionism is discriminatory, and does harm people. The use of subsidies in developed nations has historically held back the ability of developing nations to compete with them.

Furthermore, you are right about internal economic systems; fortunately, free trade is not an internal system: it's an external trade policy. And the UN does have the right to intervene in such.

Or should we allow the unregulated flow of slaves, narcotics, black market arms and weapons of mass destruction?

OOC: I would be very interested to see a protectionist defend the EU's agriculture subventions. Anyone care to try?

The race issue and discrimination issues don't have to do with free-trade corporations providing jobs. It has to do with them providing jobs that pay under a dollar a day to a senior citizen to work at a heavy drill for 8 hours a day. It's a job, but it's hardly an opportunity.

Nationalism can be a reason, if not is a reason, for protectionism (I only hesitate because communist and socialist systems, which are aggressively internationalist, often employ tariffs). However, nations have to look out for their own citizens first. They should try to employ their own citizens and alleviate poverty within their own borders, rather than sending countless dollars abroad. If you disagree, that's fine. This proposal doesn't mandate protectionism; it allows it.

Self-reliance can be extraordinarily important to a nation, especially a new one. You claim that a new nation could be better at "labor-intensive" industries, but, as I mentioned before, many of these jobs are quite a negative experience, especially compared with the white-collar jobs supervising said workers for the foreign corporation. Free trade can be very beneficial to nations that are about equal economically and industrially, as I said. It just doesn't make sense that tasking countless third-world laborers with menial, low-paying tasks for a foreign corporation could help a poor nation as opposed to having them rise to leadership roles in homegrown industries or producing goods for their own nation.

I agree that protectionism and free trade can both be racist and wrong, if misused. I am trying to call it a draw and ask you to support this resolution, which permits nations to choose for themselves which system they want to adopt as their internal system of accepting goods and practicing corporate capitalism or whatever other system they want.

I have no idea what you're taking about with regards to the EU's agricultural programs. Care to enlighten us?

Let's keep exchanging shots here. I don't believe I have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing you to change your mind, but our arguments might really change someone else's.

I have no idea what you're taking about with regards to the EU's agricultural programs. Care to enlighten us?
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/bp61_sugar_dumping.htm

Let's keep exchanging shots here. I don't believe I have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing you to change your mind, but our arguments might really change someone else's.
I have no IC response to this, but OOC, you might. Free trade is an area I'm deeply uncertain about - I just roleplay Gruenberg as supporting it.

As to the rest of your points: I know what your proposal is trying to do. But I disagree with it. I think national sovereignty ends at national borders: you have the right to build an army, not to wage wars of territorial aggression; the right to fish your own seas, not to fish others' without their permission. And you have the right to determine your internal economic system, but not to enact trade policies to the active detriment of other nations' economies - something protectionism does.

I believe that your proposal will block any future UN free trade agreements. That's bad, because in general, I think free trade really is something to be promoting. Trade brings with it a greater degree of peaceful, cooperative international exchange; it fosters good diplomatic relations, and it helps cultures relate to one another. Free trade creates greater efficiency, greater production levels, and greater specialisation, which is in the interests of all people, not just the inhabitants of one nation.

It should be for the UN to consider all people, not just those in nations that can afford to use subsidies and enact tariffs. Protectionism ultimately favours developed nations, because of its very nature. Look at the word: you cannot "protect" what does not exist. You cannot protect developing industries: they need to compete in order to get a foothold on the market.

Thank you for the Oxfam link. As a fair trader and a protectionist, I truly can't defend this sort of policy. It is unfair to local farmers and workers. The EU really can't dump it's sugar on the rest of the world, especially impoverished nations. That's why regulations are needed. Still, I think that's largely OOC here.

Do you believe that immigration policy is an international question, or a domestic one? I believe that it is a domestic one, as, although it involves the transfer of people from one nation to another, the major issue regards one nation losing people and another gaining people. Each must deal with the respective issues there. Although dialogue may be very important and mutual deals may be needed to fix problems, it really isn't an issue that a third party can use to alter the laws of either nation, beyond basic protection of human life and rights. The same can be applied to this issue. Although our entire argument is about goods going from one place to another, the real issues lay with the nation accepting the goods freely, taxing them or refusing them. Although dialogue and discussion are needed to deal with this, it has to be a domestic policy. A nation's jurisdiction begin at its own borders. Free trade has not proven to be a matter of absolute human rights, and I have continually refuted your claims about the evils of free trade. I don't know if there will ever be an end to this debate, but there's validity to both sides. That's my point. This resolution is the great option for national sovereignty.

Thank you for the Oxfam link. As a fair trader and a protectionist, I truly can't defend this sort of policy. It is unfair to local farmers and workers. The EU really can't dump it's sugar on the rest of the world, especially impoverished nations. That's why regulations are needed. Still, I think that's largely OOC here.
It's not "largely OOC here" when your IC proposal is saying that:
- nations have a right to enact such policies
- the UN should not be able to stop nations from enacting such policies

Do you believe that immigration policy is an international question, or a domestic one? I believe that it is a domestic one, as, although it involves the transfer of people from one nation to another, the major issue regards one nation losing people and another gaining people. Each must deal with the respective issues there. Although dialogue may be very important and mutual deals may be needed to fix problems, it really isn't an issue that a third party can use to alter the laws of either nation, beyond basic protection of human life and rights.
Some is international, some is domestic. Refugees, perhaps political asylum seekers and other general asylum seekers - it is reasonable to override some parts of national immigration policy when dealing with them. Many other aspects of the policy itself? Yes, I agree, domestic. But I don't accept the parallel. You say "a nation's jurisdiction begin [sic] at its own borders". It also ends there. This is nothing to do with national sovereignty, because it is a consideration of an international affair.

And no, free trade can't be proven to be a matter of absolute human rights. Nothing can. This, though, comes pretty close:
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.
This is not true under protectionism. People are treated differently based on how rich their government is.

Immigration is generally a national issue because 1) there are so many variables involved that it doesn't make sense to legislate internationally and 2) like you said, immigration doesn't affect the nation of emigration that much.

Not so with free trade. Economies improve when they can trade freely. Ceorana exports a lot of goods, and would lose a giant chunk of its economy if nations started going protectionist. Free trade is a very international issue. Ceorana draws the line at abortion, and this blocker is a disgrace to national sovereignity.

I'd also like to note that free trade and fair trade are not mutually exclusive. Nations should enact free trade policies, but also use the channels of the UN to ensure that people are being treated properly in other nations. Additionally, corporations may gain customers by enacting their own fair trade policies, where they ensure that workers in the nations they export from are being paid a living wage and being treated properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Universal Bill of Rights
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

This is not true under protectionism. People are treated differently based on how rich their government is.
Today 9:54 PM

Human beings are still treated equally under the law of their own member nations. If your interpretation holds true, national governments can no longer make decisions, as any different treatment with regards to abortion, gun rights or even jaywalking would be disqualified under the Universal Bill of Rights.

Fair trade, free trade and, for that matter, protectionism, are not exclusive systems. I never said they were. Nations should be allowed to tax some items, freely trade others and fairly trade others still. Economies may improve with some free trade, but be hurt by other free trade. Like I already said, a dollar-a-day job working 8 hours at heavy machinery does not improve a nation's economy when that same worker could be producing goods for his/her own nation's use.

While free trade may be appropriate for some nations, isn't that for them to decide? What about communist-socialist economies, where free trade could bankrupt the state by putting corporate-capitalist goods on the same shelf as state-produced goods? Wouldn't that be considered an invasion of internal national rights by eliminating a set of major, valid economic systems (this is not to be used as a defense of slavery) from the game?

Every nation should decide for itself and with open discussion with other nations as to where free trade should apply. Any nation has the right to seriously try and develop their own industries and thus build dignity, independence and self-reliance.

I agree completely with Tarmsden's last post. Frankly, that is what this proposal does: it allows nations more economic self-determination. It reserves nations the right to enact tariffs IF THEY CHOOSE SO. Just like the resolution "the Right to form Labor Unions". No one is forcing all nations in the NS world to enact tariffs, we're merely giving them the option to do so, as opposed to several other free trade resolutions that Gruenberg pointed out which force all nations to trade freely certain commodities. Granted, the commodities so far can benefit most nations involved, and give others a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.

That's all this proposal seeks to do. Give nations more economic options.

Belarum, to try and ease some of the contention over this, could you possibly amend the proposal to include exceptions for any new UN proposals that seek to provide free trade for specific goods and types of goods? I think it would be a way to make this more technically sound, if nothing else.

I agree completely with Tarmsden's last post. Frankly, that is what this proposal does: it allows nations more economic self-determination. It reserves nations the right to enact tariffs IF THEY CHOOSE SO. Just like the resolution "the Right to form Labor Unions". No one is forcing all nations in the NS world to enact tariffs, we're merely giving them the option to do so, as opposed to several other free trade resolutions that Gruenberg pointed out which force all nations to trade freely certain commodities. Granted, the commodities so far can benefit most nations involved, and give others a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.

That's all this proposal seeks to do. Give nations more economic options.
But there are some cases where, even under the protectionist camp's theories, free trade is completely necessary. Food, for example, which is why we passed GFDA. There are others, like necessities. Clothing would be good for a free trade agreement. But that's not the end. Even if protectionism were necessary, that doesn't mean that there are no further cases where free trade is necessary for other nations besides the one who is deciding whether to have tariffs? This resolution ties the hands of the UN on an issue where there may be more to be done with those hands.

Absolutely, Ceorana. Hence my call for Belarum to amend the proposal to permit current and future UN resolutions to have exceptions to this new resolution if it is passed.

How would something like this look:

AFFIRMING that the option to trade freely with another nation should be left to the discretion of each nation engaged or desiring to engage in such actions, and that the UN may pass free trade initiatives in the future which seek to provide nations worldwide with necessities deemed as such by the United Nations Free Trade Commision (UNFTC),

Wouldn't it just be simpler to change article 1 to:

"1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any UN legislation that abolishes tariffs for certain necessities;"

as opposed to "past UN legislation"?

Probably :D

The proposal has been updated.

How about just "1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, except when necessary for compliance with another UN resolution;"

That would allow proposals that don't explicitly require tariffs, but may actually require them to be gotten rid of, as well as resolutions that urge but don't require free trade, proposals that mandate no tariffs for other things, etc.

Updated, wrote in "any previous or future legislation" in both 1 and 2.

Belarum, as your co-author, I believe the time has come for submission! We have had a prolonged debate and made many needed changes to this proposal. In my opinion, it is time to let the real games begin!

OOC: Apologies, but removing the block on future Free Trade legislation renders this pointless.

Argh. I'd love to see something like this pass but, in its own way, it's just as damaging as the recent anti-protectionist resolutions. What we need is something that blocks 'developed' nations from dumping and raising barriers to goods and services from 'developing' nations while at the same time allowing the latter to nurse their infant industries. In other words, attempting to level the playing field. Yes, this is positive discrimination, if you like, but the point is that such a policy is likely the best way of dragging people above the poverty lines (which, in RL, are absurdly low). This form of protectionism aids poor nations in developing their small businesses, be they private sector, state-run or some other form (co-operative, for example).

Linking this specifically to the game... is it actually possible to have such a resolution? I suspect not, as it will not treat all UN nations equally. But we need something, else the Free Trade resolutions will keep on coming (unless we get into the horrible business of repealing).

So, what to do?

Indeed. Gruen's "Economic Development Act" will block this proposal from passing--it will be deleted. You can try two things: try your best to keep the proposal below quorum, or repeal it once it passes. If you need a repeal to be passed on Gruen's proposal, just take a look at my sig to know how well I can pass a repeal ;) . Also, I'll be of help with any TG campaigns you try.

Your clause 3 still needs to be amended as per clauses 1 and 2, or else the changes are useless.

Furthermore, I'm still uncomfortable about the UN endorsing protectionism. Could it simply state that "all nations have the right to employ tariffs", so as to make it seem it could be referring to simple revenue tariffs?

How about just "1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, except when necessary for compliance with another UN resolution;"

That would allow proposals that don't explicitly require tariffs, but may actually require them to be gotten rid of, as well as resolutions that urge but don't require free trade, proposals that mandate no tariffs for other things, etc.

Agree with Eco. So basically these clauses say: "you can use tariffs, unless UN resolutions say you can't". How is this any different than what is in practice now? These clauses are pointless if they don't protect future anti-tariff legislation, and do nothing at all.

It outlines the rights of nations to do so, much like the "Right to Form Unions" resolution.

Update:

The proposal has been submitted! It can be found here:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=developed