NationStates Jolt Archive

The "Robin Hood Resolution" proposal has been submitted to to the UN fo proposal by the delegate of the "The Seat of Heaven": The Jingoistic States of Lesser Tetragrammton (http://www.nationstates.net/19811/page=display_nation/nation=lesser_tetragrammaton).

Purpose and Effect:
This resolution seeks to impose a sliding levy on UN member states that are flagrantly non-democratic in nature, more specifically the extremist left. The intended effect of this resolution is to increase the equality of UN member states economies and as a by product increase the available economic & social welfare of all.

The Left nations should support this resolution because of their firm belief in equality and promoting equal rights for all. The right should support this because it is autocratic and will further their ideological beliefs. Small member nations and delegates of smaller regions should support this as it is bound to improve their economies and improve social welfare in their areas of concern. Large nations should support this because let's be honest the only way smaller nations are going to get ahead is to get some welfare payments form you guys so have a heart.


Nuts & Bolts:
This resolution proposes to levy (or tax) the largest and most extreme left nations economies in the UN to a maximum of 1% of GDP and redistribute the collected funds to smaller more right nations on a pro rata basis, based upon their size and rightist views.


Ideology:
This resolution takes its form from the Parable of Robin Hood and his merry men. This "band of Merry Men" whilst overtly communist in the effect of their practices, conducted themselves in a fascist manner by unilaterally deciding on who was least deserving and taking that by force of arms or intimidation (whatever works best).




This proposal falls under the heading of restrticting politcal freedoms for the good of all. Why you may ask when it is revenue based? Well clearly the need to restrict the ability of larger extremeist nations to grow beyond control is of concern to everyone. More funding is required to improve equality of UN Nations and this needs to come from htose who can afford it. Up till now larger longer established nations and regions have wielded too much power and the only way to reduce such power fairly and redistribute it is to support my proposal. No other viable method exists. Support it now!



Ja Bless

You keep contradicting yourself in the proposal. The Ceoranan delegation is unable to discern what the point is. Are you trying to levy a tax on non-democratic or democratic nations? Sometimes you say one, sometimes the other.

This has Abortion Legality Convention's chance in the IDU of passing I'm afraid. ;) Most nations won't like the interference with their political system.

But welcome to the UN! I haven't seen you before. Good luck with your proposals.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

Regional ads belong in Gameplay.

Even if you could define "left" and "right" nations in a way that isn't completely subjective and arbitrary, I doubt this proposal would even be legal.

You keep contradicting yourself in the proposal. The Ceoranan delegation is unable to discern what the point is. Are you trying to levy a tax on non-democratic or democratic nations? Sometimes you say one, sometimes the other.

UN Officer

Your concern is noted however, I think you will find that I propose a tax on Large Socialist nations specifically (and large nations in general), in an attempt to put into play the political rhetoric that socialist nations are so found of presenting. This is a resolution to make socialist "put their money where their mouth is".

I have focused on Left (socialist) nations as my region has objections to their system of government and wishes to point out the inconsistencies on a UN scale of their policies. This resoultion in effect seeks to reduce the power of socialism in the UN by making them less econmically and politically powerful by making them be consitent in their policies on a global scale.


This is hardly an interference [let alone an onerous one] in member states business,but is that not what the UN does anyway? Imposes the views of the majority on individual member states? Also you might like to have a think about the fact that this resoultion is much less intrusive than other policy based legislation as it requires only a tax as oposed to limiting the ability of nations to hold views on topics.


Ps Thanks for your welcome and I hope that the The Ceoranan delegation can now in good conscience support the proposal.


PPS Omigodtheykilledkenny, This is not a regional add but instead it provides background on my region and nation as a way to show where this resoultion ideologically comes from.
The distinction between left and right is inherent to the categorisation of the game. The game itself makes this distinction in the UN category (centerist democracy, socialist paradise etc. This resoultion targets only the most extreme left categories).

you guys so have a heart.We do have a heart but believe we need to help our own first and not just bleed for all. We currently support other nations in our region as well as three other regions that we share common interests with and have for many generations. Thus we feel we do not need to have the UN tell us who to bleed on.


Ideology:
This resolution takes its form from the Parable of Robin Hood and his merry men. This "band of Merry Men" whilst overtly communist in the effect of their practices, conducted themselves in a fascist manner by unilaterally deciding on who was least deserving and taking that by force of arms or intimidation (whatever works best).You want us now to violate one of our own national laws thus end up once tried and found guilty serving 56 years in a prison.. As I'm now 56 this under our laws would mean I would hang because my sentence would place me beyond my life expectancy of 88 years; so I'd hand within five days of sentence with no repeals to be had.

Also I believe this Robin Hood sounds like the leader of some gang, mafia family, or terrorist group.. thus we see no logic to follow their example in gaining equality among UN members just more conflict over the actions of this Robin Hood.

Ps if you would like to know more about my nation and region please visit or even join my region, we welcme all non-communists and sexytimes are guaranteed by myself and the founder.All we need are the GPS locations of your key towns and military bases and we will have all we want from you.. Oh! We will be sure to pass them along to our allies so they will not have to bother you to get these from you.

This proposal makes no sense and is probably illegal since it targets only specific nations, and even more, based on their political system.

You are also confusing political and economic terms. Socialism is an economic ideology, and can exist in either a democratic or dictatorial framework. Likewise capitalism. Neither are by themselves a system of government.

Your concern is noted however, I think you will find that I propose a tax on Large Socialist nations specifically (and large nations in general), in an attempt to put into play the political rhetoric that socialist nations are so found of presenting. This is a resolution to make socialist "put their money where their mouth is". The bit in bold alone is enough to make me want to mobilse my armed forces and squash you like a bug. That's the benefit of being a large nation (5 billion plus).

If you want more power (which is basically what you are proposing by removing power from large nations), you are just going to have to put the time and effort in like everyone else.

As for the rest of it, I don't see anyone ever said the extreme lefties were especially rational. Or extreme righties for that matter. That's the nature of extremism - rationality is not it's strong point.

Then you are making the same mistake that ol Marx made - by trying to bundle everything into one pulsing and flawed blob of ideology.

Finally,Ps if you would like to know more about my nation and region please visit or even join my region, we welcme all non-communists and sexytimes are guaranteed by myself and the founder.That is a regional ad if I have ever seen one.

Interesting... particularly when one recalls that Robin Hood gave to the poor, a rather left-wing concept (especially for the period).

PPS Omigodtheykilledkenny, This is not a regional add but instead it provides background on my region and nation as a way to show where this resoultion ideologically comes from.Still belongs in Gameplay.

The distinction between left and right is inherent to the categorisation of the game. The game itself makes this distinction in the UN category (centerist democracy, socialist paradise etc. This resoultion targets only the most extreme left categories).Well, then, that would be MetaGaming. Illegal.

Your concern is noted however, I think you will find that I propose a tax on Large Socialist nations specifically (and large nations in general), in an attempt to put into play the political rhetoric that socialist nations are so found of presenting. This is a resolution to make socialist "put their money where their mouth is".

I have focused on Left (socialist) nations as my region has objections to their system of government and wishes to point out the inconsistencies on a UN scale of their policies. This resoultion in effect seeks to reduce the power of socialism in the UN by making them less econmically and politically powerful by making them be consitent in their policies on a global scale.


This is hardly an interference [let alone an onerous one] in member states business,but is that not what the UN does anyway? Imposes the views of the majority on individual member states? Also you might like to have a think about the fact that this resoultion is much less intrusive than other policy based legislation as it requires only a tax as oposed to limiting the ability of nations to hold views on topics.


Ps Thanks for your welcome and I hope that the The Ceoranan delegation can now in good conscience support the proposal.


PPS Omigodtheykilledkenny, This is not a regional add but instead it provides background on my region and nation as a way to show where this resoultion ideologically comes from.
The distinction between left and right is inherent to the categorisation of the game. The game itself makes this distinction in the UN category (centerist democracy, socialist paradise etc. This resoultion targets only the most extreme left categories).
Illegal. See "UN Taxation Ban."

Better if you saw it. UN Taxation Ban only forbids the UN from taxing private citizens, not member governments.

Better if you saw it. UN Taxation Ban only forbids the UN from taxing private citizens, not member governments.
It's still illegal as it only affects certain nations, and could possibly be called out for an ideological ban. This resolution, even if it was legal, is crap anyway. Why must far left comunist and socialist dictatorships be taxed more than far right dictatorships? And, "far left?" What the hell are you talking about? Far right states are much more likely to be dictatorships than left.

EDIT: Oh yeah, this is still illegal by Taxation Ban because this would require the government to tax their citizens to pay the UN.

It's still illegal as it only affects certain nations,

False. Lack of application != optionality

and could possibly be called out for an ideological ban.

False. Discrimination against an ideology != ideological ban

This resolution, even if it was legal, is crap anyway.

True

Why must far left comunist and socialist dictatorships be taxed more than far right dictatorships? And, "far left?" What the hell are you talking about? Far right states are much more likely to be dictatorships than left.

False. By the concept of political ideologies, far left and far right are about as likely to become dictatorships. Really, such simplistic viewing of the world fails to consider there are benevolent dictatorships that are fairly moderate and still happen to be a dictatorship.

OOC: In the past century, you'll probably have found more far left dictatorships than far right. Why? The far-right dictatorships got their asses whooped, the far-left propogated their beliefs.

EDIT: Oh yeah, this is still illegal by Taxation Ban because this would require the government to tax their citizens to pay the UN.

False. Forcing them to change their spending habits doesn't necessarily mean they will automatically increase taxes. If a government decides it needs to spend more on health care, does it automatically turn to tax increases? No. It first looks to figure out what can be cut.

EDIT: Oh yeah, this is still illegal by Taxation Ban because this would require the government to tax their citizens to pay the UN.
Incorrect, the Taxation Ban prohibits the UN from taxing a nation's citizens directly, forcing a nation to raise taxes to pay for something could be considered an indirect tax.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm stunned.



I really honestly can't even come up with any response beyond, "No."

I mean, if it becomes necessary, I'll say something more... Constructive than just "No," but "No" really does do a fantastic job of summing up the response to this... This.

Large nations should support this because let's be honest the only way smaller nations are going to get ahead is to get some welfare payments form you guys so have a heart.

Punishing success is always a smart idea. :rolleyes: