NationStates Jolt Archive

i am, regrettably, new to the world of nationstates, so this is my first proposal. Its purpose is to stop economic regulation of private business by the UN:

Economic Freedom
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Lord Sumguy

Description: The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that economic policies among member nations are extremely varied,

NOTING that the purpose of the U.N. is to prevent war and further the freedom and prosperity of humanity,

FURTHER NOTING that business is a private affair, and that the U.N. is neither a business or market, but a political organization concerned with international affairs, not domestic policy,

RECOGNISING that involvement in economics may lead to the corruption of the U.N. as a political entity,

FURTHER RECOGNISING that the U.N. is concerned with the actions of governments and political units, not private citizens,

STATING that companies and corporations are privately owned and non-political, and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the U.N.,

ESTABLISHES that the U.N. shall make no resrictions upon privately owned businesses, and that the U.N. shall not determine the economic policy of it's member nations concerning private sectors.




comments, advice, or suggestions would be appreciated.

RECOGNISING that economic policies among member nations are extremely varied,
Good.


NOTING that the purpose of the U.N. is to prevent war and further the freedom and prosperity of humanity,

I would take this out. The purpose of the UN is highly debatable. Some people say it's to ensure peace, other say it's to house the Stranger's Bar.


FURTHER NOTING that business is a private affair, and that the U.N. is neither a business or market, but a political organization concerned with international affairs, not domestic policy,

Okay, I think. I'll let someone else weigh in.


RECOGNISING that involvement in economics may lead to the corruption of the U.N. as a political entity,
I think it's too late for that.


FURTHER RECOGNISING that the U.N. is concerned with the actions of governments and political units, not private citizens,
You already said this before, about domestic policy. Take one out, they're redundant.


STATING that companies and corporations are privately owned and non-political, and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the U.N.,
Some might argue with you, but okay.


ESTABLISHES that the U.N. shall make no restrictions upon privately owned businesses, and that the U.N. shall not determine the economic policy of it's member nations concerning private sectors.


I think this interferes with several past resolutions.

Though I think the blocker is okay. Maybe. I don't know.

-Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador

thanks, ill use your suggestions for the next draft if this one fails.

ESTABLISHES that the U.N. shall make no resrictions upon privately owned businesses, and that the U.N. shall not determine the economic policy of it's member nations concerning private sectors.

You might want to change "ESTABLISHES" to something like "MANDATES" or "HENCHFORTH". Establishes sounds like your set up a new UN agency. You might also want to see if this interferes with any past resolutions as well.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

i am, regrettably, new to the world of nationstates, so this is my first proposal. Its purpose is to stop economic regulation of private business by the UN:
I'll be up-front, I entirely disagree with your philosophy. That matters rather less than your arguments being so thin they're nearly see-through, though.

RECOGNISING that economic policies among member nations are extremely varied,
Tick, v.g.

NOTING that the purpose of the U.N. is to prevent war and further the freedom and prosperity of humanity,
Not the worst attempt to define the UN's mission I've seen, but it'll still get you lots of grief from those who disagree. "NOTING" this, i.e. asserting that it's a priori true, is a really good way to get completely distracted from your proposal.

FURTHER NOTING that business is a private affair,
Sometimes. Sometimes business transactions have considerable consequences, making them very much public affairs. The 'higher level' the transaction, the more likely this is to be true.

and that the U.N. is neither a business or market, but a political organization concerned with international affairs, not domestic policy,
First, being picky about language, it's "neither... nor". And "market" needs an article too.

Second, that's not entirely true. It implies that domestic policy never affects international affairs, which just isn't true in all sorts of ways. Just to pick one example in economics, domestic decisions about interest rates will cause fluctuations in currency markets, and can cause changes to economies on the other side of the world.

RECOGNISING that involvement in economics may lead to the corruption of the U.N. as a political entity,
I guess we'd better repeal that Economics Prize then.

FURTHER RECOGNISING that the U.N. is concerned with the actions of governments and political units, not private citizens,
Again, not entirely true. One of the things that clearly does concern the UN, given the amount of resolutions about it, is the actions of governments and political units on private citizens.

STATING that companies and corporations are privately owned and non-political, and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the U.N.,
::Looks at the various unmissable representatives of corporate states in the chamber:: Suuuuuuuuure.

ESTABLISHES that the U.N. shall make no resrictions upon privately owned businesses, and that the U.N. shall not determine the economic policy of it's member nations concerning private sectors.
*cough*spellcheck*cough*

Shan't. I'm sorry, you're going to have to argue a lot harder than that to persuade me for one. In particular, the number of not-quite-true statements persuades me that however unlikely I think the UN will be to want to do anything to 'private' businesses, I can't guarantee that there won't be exceptions that really need international regulation that the UN can provide.

I'll be up-front, I entirely disagree with your philosophy. That matters rather less than your arguments being so thin they're nearly see-through, though.


Tick, v.g.


Not the worst attempt to define the UN's mission I've seen, but it'll still get you lots of grief from those who disagree. "NOTING" this, i.e. asserting that it's a priori true, is a really good way to get completely distracted from your proposal.


Sometimes. Sometimes business transactions have considerable consequences, making them very much public affairs. The 'higher level' the transaction, the more likely this is to be true.


First, being picky about language, it's "neither... nor". And "market" needs an article too.

Second, that's not entirely true. It implies that domestic policy never affects international affairs, which just isn't true in all sorts of ways. Just to pick one example in economics, domestic decisions about interest rates will cause fluctuations in currency markets, and can cause changes to economies on the other side of the world.


I guess we'd better repeal that Economics Prize then.


Again, not entirely true. One of the things that clearly does concern the UN, given the amount of resolutions about it, is the actions of governments and political units on private citizens.


::Looks at the various unmissable representatives of corporate states in the chamber:: Suuuuuuuuure.


*cough*spellcheck*cough*

Shan't. I'm sorry, you're going to have to argue a lot harder than that to persuade me for one. In particular, the number of not-quite-true statements persuades me that however unlikely I think the UN will be to want to do anything to 'private' businesses, I can't guarantee that there won't be exceptions that really need international regulation that the UN can provide.

thanks for the suggestions, i will take them into account.

Personally, I completely disagree with this proposal and intend to vote against. Nonetheless, it is a well-written proposal and certainly very good for a first try. Much better than my first attempt, at any rate.

As written this would probably be illegal, because in general you can't prohibit types of legislation. Instead, it would have to be rephrased as a positive statement: 'all nations shall have the right...'/'all companies shall have the right...' That's just my opinion, though, and others might interpret the rules differently.

As for the proposal, we wouldn't support, chiefly because of some disagreements - or differences in interpretation - regarding the preamble.
NOTING that the purpose of the U.N. is to prevent war and further the freedom and prosperity of humanity,
Mmm, no. We don't agree this is the purpose of the UN. Indeed, on joining, we were told that the UN is 'the world's governing body', which would seem to imply a mandate considerably broader than this. Further, there's no necessary problem with the UN's mission being furthering the freedom and prosperity of humanity and the UN actively legislating on the affairs of private businesses, where the latter advances the former.
FURTHER NOTING that business is a private affair, and that the U.N. is neither a business or market, but a political organization concerned with international affairs, not domestic policy,
To some extent. But transnational businesses are presumably still fair game for UN legislation, because they are conducting international affairs that transcend any one nation's domestic policy?
RECOGNISING that involvement in economics may lead to the corruption of the U.N. as a political entity,
Again, possibly. At this point, I think I should mention I dislike the term 'political': the UN is arguably meant to be nonpolitical. It might be better to say 'as an impartial international entity' or similar. Beyond that, I'd say there is a difference between the UN stating 'all nations must operate a command economy' and the UN stating 'all companies must conform to basic laws on transparency of accounts'. Yes, I suppose in some senses the latter is legislating against a completely laissez-faire economy, and similarly any concessions to private enterprise to total prohibition thereof, but such absolutes are always likely to lose out when it comes to legislative compromises.
FURTHER RECOGNISING that the U.N. is concerned with the actions of governments and political units, not private citizens,
Well, 'political units' is pretty broad and, for example, given the influence of companies on Quodite electoral politics, could include businesses. And insofar as private citizens have the capacity to influence international affairs, they seem reasonably subject to the UN's authority.
STATING that companies and corporations are privately owned and non-political, and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the U.N.,
The above arguments are really to demonstrate how I deviate from this conclusion. Your argument is logical in itself, but it requires accepting your axioms, not all of which I do.
ESTABLISHES that the U.N. shall make no resrictions upon privately owned businesses, and that the U.N. shall not determine the economic policy of it's member nations concerning private sectors.
I strongly urge concentrating on the latter half of this legislation, and making it clear how the UN will not determine the basic economic policies of member nations, nor enforce/prohibit privatisation of specific sectors. There's sense in that; we admit to not seeing sense in restricting the only body capable of controlling international capital

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)
Totally not a Social Democrat, honest