NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal the UN Space Consortium

04-09-2007, 21:34
Repeal of the Un Space Constortium

Catagory Free Trade
Strength Strong

Description: UN Resolution #50: UN Space Consortium (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: With the advent of new aviation and aerospace technology the Book of Genisis must now be rewritten. As descendants of Abraham, we must now go forth and "increase and multiply, and fill the [universe], and subdue it, and rule over all manner of strange beasts and living creatures in the infinite airs, on the infinite earths beneath them."

The UN Space Consortium grants an unfair monopoly for the spacing industry. The result on the UN Space Consortium is an incorporated business that generates money for investors. Instead businesses are meant to provide goods for consumers at reasonable prices.

According to Adam Smith, the founder of modern economic theory, competition is required for the developement of an economy. Businesses, and not just corporations, but even sole proprietorships, partnerships, and co-operatives, need incentive to provide an invisible hand to set fair and reasonable prices. The monopoly, granted to the UN Space Constortium impedes this very principle.

Furthermore, the the Malthusian dilema remains one basic hinderence in economic thought: human being have unlimited wants and needs. By untapping the limitless cornacopia of the Universe mankind will be able to achieve any kind of standard of living he desires.

Therefore, nations have the right to claim any celestial object in the universe and space stations built soley by a nation must be considered soveriegn ground, provided that the claiming nation can man, defend, and patrol it.

The claimed area may then become open to free or government enterprise, and be subject to soveriegn nation's laws.

The Earth is the cradle of the human race, but we cannot remain in a cradle forever.
04-09-2007, 21:45
The UN Space Consortium must be repealled beause it grants an unfair monopoly.
04-09-2007, 21:48
The current repeal proposal that is still in question before becoming an issue fails to make clear some very important point, and it lacks support.
04-09-2007, 23:17
Could the author please point out for us exactly where in NSUNR #50 it grants a monopoly?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations
04-09-2007, 23:25
Note to all: The three posts from Pugliasium aren't examples of someone frenetically bumping their thread; he fell afoul of the Jolt glitch ( that affects new posters, and then I merged his threads.

Okay: It's a good start, Pugliasium. But, first up, the real-life references have to go, they're illegal.

Next up, quoting the Christian holy book isn't going to convince the Wenaists. Or the Kawaiians. Or any of the other varied religions of the NS multiverse.

Which "Earth" and which "universe" are we talking about? There are many in NS, including some on different timelines.
05-09-2007, 00:53
The Book of Genisis reference (the Abraham story is related to Jews, Christians, and Moslems) is meant to be a metaphor, actually taken from Frank Herbert's "Dune" to convey a message that "universes" (I was foolish to forget that there could possibly be more than one universe).

So, the religious message can be taken out of context (accidently assumed that the majority of the world was Jew, Christian, or Moslem and would understand), so it will be reworded. The "Earth" refers to the planet Earth. There is only one Earth, just like like there is one Sun, but many earths, and many suns.
I know that current references are illegal, but what about historical references to economists? Are you sure that even a reference to Sir Isaac Newton is illegal if the reference was "the SNUN hereby achknowledges that Sir Isaac discovered gravity"? If it is I will change it.

Lastly, I believe that this statement in Resultion 50

"Whereas, no nation can claim title to the Moon" and I quote:

"Full operational control, design, development, priorities, and administration will be assigned to the Board [of directors]"

These two sections place the moon and space under the balance sheets of
the UN Space Consortium. Space is under control of one board of directors.

"Whereas the nations of the world wish to unify their efforts at space exploration"
completely removes all incentive for competition. More inovation would arise if nations competed, and formed alliances (because teamwork is not forbidden) in order to develope space.
05-09-2007, 03:10
These two sections place the moon and space under the balance sheets of
the UN Space Consortium. Space is under control of one board of directors.

"Whereas the nations of the world wish to unify their efforts at space exploration"
completely removes all incentive for competition. More inovation would arise if nations competed, and formed alliances (because teamwork is not forbidden) in order to develope space.

The moon and space are under collective control of any nation that wishes to buy the stock. You make it sound as if it is under the centralized control of a small group of people; this is not so.

And furthermore, the resolution's main message is that the development of space should NOT be a competitive situation; indeed, read the last line of UNR 50. We're all in this TOGETHER, or at least those who buy stock. And that's how it should be.
05-09-2007, 08:58
If there is one form of religion common to NS, it is the bone-deep devotion to nitpicking.

I am sure, therefore, that you will find dozens of players, all of whom understand about metaphors, who are nevertheless ready to argue for hours about whether Genesis, the Christian Bible, Adam Smith and Sir Isaac Newton have any claim to existence in NS. You will also find others who want to argue about whether Adam Smith was, in truth, the founder of modern economic theory, and whether Malthusian theories apply in a place that breeds millions of people per nation per day, yet still accommodates them all.

Myself, I would happily sit down and start discussing the many proofs that more than one Earth exists here, starting with the Multiverse and dancing sideways into the slipstream of Time.

However, all these alluring discussions would take away attention from the main idea of your proposal. They'd also open potholes in the road to legality, and hide landmined loopholes in clauses that might otherwise have been rewritten straightforwardly. Not to mention taking up space.

What I'm suggesting is, if you can avoid nonsensical arguments by just leaving something out, why not just leave it out?
05-09-2007, 10:02
When we asked the author of this repeal to point out where the original resolution established a monopoly, we thought there might be something we missed. There isn't. The resolution established no monopoly on anything.

What does it do? It establishes a corporation. It sets the corporate mission: "The purpose of the U.N.S.C. shall be to establish a permanent Lunar Base." And it places control of the corporation under a Board of Directors. The notion that the Moon and space are somehow placed "under control" of this corporation or its Board of Directors is simply a misreading of the resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
The Most Glorious Hack
05-09-2007, 13:06
hide landmined loopholesBut... but... but I thought we banned landmines!
05-09-2007, 15:38
At a stroke, the resolution is flawed. it does not outline the health and safety balance of various states, the funding burderns or outline safeguards for failed investment, or stock price control. for example, what if a major shjareholding country had a recession, or a coup and they could not complete their commitment to the base?

a resolution that does not foresee these problems or explain them has no business being a resolution.
05-09-2007, 16:14
But... but... but I thought we banned landmines!

Only in UN counties.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
05-09-2007, 20:53
Ausserland, the definition of a monopoly is:

"An exlcusive privlidge of engaging in a particular business or providing a service, granted by the ruler or by the state"
(the Webster New Word Dictionary).

Has you noticed, that the UN Space Constortium Resolution establishes only ONE (mono = one) business on the moon?

Have you realized that it explicitly says that "the shares may be pruchased by any nation"? What about people? May individuals, or conglomorates pruchase shares of the UN Space Consortium? No, because Resolution 50 does not say so.

Resolution 50 says that the UNSC is meant to further the exploration of space. How may other businesses (crown, private, partnership, co-operative, etc.) conduct business on the moon? Who would they pay tax to if no nation may own the moon and the NSUN is not allowed to tax? Who enforces the law if there is no government? Is space, under the UN Space Consortium Resolution just like the 19th century Wild West?

Resolution 50 does not limit the extent of the UN Space Consortium's business practices. Is the UNSC a real estate holding company, that may rent land, and mining rights to other businesses? No. For all we know the UNSC can have the entire moon within its balance sheet and conduct every form of business from iron mining to providing Tang for astronaunts.

And even though the shares of the Space Consortium can be owned by all nations, there is little competition to encourage the Space Consortium to provide better services, goods, or prices for consumers.

This is not about sharing control of the moon, this about tapping the limitless resources of space to help mankind.

Resolution 50 is a good idea, but it is shortsighted and vague.
It needs to be repealled and replaced by a new resolution.
05-09-2007, 21:54
We're very much aware of what a monopoly is, thank you. And NSUNR#50 creates no monopoly.

Where in the resolution does it say that no other corporation, group, consortium of nations, or individual can establish a lunar base? The resolution does establish "only ONE (mono = one) business on the moon". It does not say that others cannot be established. It does not claim the entire Moon as property of the Consortium.

You insist on reading all sorts of things into the resolution that simply are not there. The resolution is clear both in its purpose and its effect. You are misrepresenting both. Less hysteria and more careful reading of the resolution would be in order.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister