NationStates Jolt Archive

(This should really say Why Are Free Trade Proposals Legal, but now that I have your attention ...)

Why are free trade proposals legal?

I ask this based on a series of broad propositions (any one of which may well be faulty) and beg the delegates who understand economic matters to explain where I’ve gone wrong.


Socialist and Communist governments are economic interventionists.
This may include a system of economic arrangements favouring our comrades or disadvantaging our ideological opponents.
To prevent us from making such arrangements is to prevent us from being socialists or communists.
Free trade proposals outlaw such arrangements.
Therefore free trade proposals are ideological bans, in that they prevent us being socialist or communist governments.
Therefore free trade proposals are illegal under the UN’s own rules.

My logic here if plainly faulty, since free trade proposals don’t get rejected automatically, so there must be some general principle that I’ve missed. I’d appreciate it if the knowledgeable would explain it to me in very simple terms. (Not, however, Gloggian.)

The UN has been/is discussing a proposal that restricts itself to a specific group of goods; it’s not a full imposition of free trade.

However, I’m uneasily aware of the possibility of a series of specific-group free trade proposals eventually tying us up in so many knots that we can no longer be interventionist to the degree that we regard as necessary to our ideological existence.

It seems unlikely that the UN would deliberately choose measures that would force all our comrade nations to choose between ceasing to exist in the form we prefer, or leaving this august body and cutting ourselves off from communication with (misguided but) sensible and intelligent nations. But that could come about unconsciously.

I can’t see that international free trade involves other important considerations to the extent that, say, the example quoted in the rules -- a ban on slavery – overrides economic matters.

Possibly this is a conundrum I’ve created because of my original proposition – I regard economic interventionism as essential to our comrades, and the UN collectively doesn’t – in which case I fear that there is little point in arguing the matter.

We will have to continue acting in such a way that our economy remains a tool in shaping a just society; no less, but certainly no more.

Will Edward (Bill) Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS.

Ardchoilleans;13092728'](This should really say Why Are Free Trade Proposals Legal, but now that I have your attention ...)

Why are free trade proposals legal?

I ask this based on a series of broad propositions (any one of which may well be faulty) and beg the delegates who understand economic matters to explain where I’ve gone wrong.


Socialist and Communist governments are economic interventionists.
This may include a system of economic arrangements favouring our comrades or disadvantaging our ideological opponents.
To prevent us from making such arrangements is to prevent us from being socialists or communists.
Free trade proposals outlaw such arrangements.
Therefore free trade proposals are ideological bans, in that they prevent us being socialist or communist governments.
Therefore free trade proposals are illegal under the UN’s own rules.

My logic here if plainly faulty, since free trade proposals don’t get rejected automatically, so there must be some general principle that I’ve missed. I’d appreciate it if the knowledgeable would explain it to me in very simple terms. (Not, however, Gloggian.)

The UN has been/is discussing a proposal that restricts itself to a specific group of goods; it’s not a full imposition of free trade.

However, I’m uneasily aware of the possibility of a series of specific-group free trade proposals eventually tying us up in so many knots that we can no longer be interventionist to the degree that we regard as necessary to our ideological existence.

It seems unlikely that the UN would deliberately choose measures that would force all our comrade nations to choose between ceasing to exist in the form we prefer, or leaving this august body and cutting ourselves off from communication with (misguided but) sensible and intelligent nations. But that could come about unconsciously.

I can’t see that international free trade involves other important considerations to the extent that, say, the example quoted in the rules -- a ban on slavery – overrides economic matters.

Possibly this is a conundrum I’ve created because of my original proposition – I regard economic interventionism as essential to our comrades, and the UN collectively doesn’t – in which case I fear that there is little point in arguing the matter.

We will have to continue acting in such a way that our economy remains a tool in shaping a just society; no less, but certainly no more.

Will Edward (Bill) Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS.

IC: Filthy communist.

OOC: Sorry, but that's Dr. Hodz for ya.

Nice work. It raises some interesting questions.

OK, do human rights protocols prevent tyrants from being as tyrannical?

Does the furtherment of democracy prevent dictators from being as dictatorial?

If so, why are either of these types of proposals legal?

You can hair-split all you like to try and contend that any proposal making requirements on nations constitutes an ideological ban. Freedom of religion violates the rights of theocratic states as surely as the institution of union rights and regulation of businesses violates the rights capitalists. And yet the former argument has already been made before. So has the latter.

Muggle-protection statutes would violate the rights of magicocracies, wouldn't they? I'm sure that argument hasn't been made yet. But even if it were, would you want it to be lent credence?

... Well, Mr. ArdchoilleaNS?

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

Very good questions indeed, Mr. Kelly, and we hope you get some in-depth answers as it is a concern of ours as well.

We'd take a stab at what one of the answers will partially be and that is protectionist trade is not limited to economic systems of the socialist model and thus are not specifically associated with an ideology. We're not sure if that is completely true, though, because the converse, that free trade can be readily practiced by socialist systems, on the face should also be true, and it's not.
OK, do human rights protocols prevent tyrants from being as tyrannical?

Does the furtherment of democracy prevent dictators from being as dictatorial?Is tyranny (or dictatorship for that matter) an ideology? Or is it a means? We're not arguing one way or another. Until ideology is satisfactorily defined, I don't think your (or NSArdchoilleans) questions can be answered without polemic.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

If I authored a proposal that forced high tariffs for all nations, regardless of economic class, how would that be fair for the free-markets? Similarly, if I authored a proposal that restricted personal property rights severely, how would that be fair to capitalist nations?

it's a two way street, and looking at it in questions of legality is quite silly. There are all sorts of nuances one can look at, and I'm of the opinion that it has to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

But if free trade proposals are illegal, then they'd better remove the "advancement of industry" option, since it's clearly an ideological ban on communist and socialist nations.

Harmaland Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

OOC: No one ever said your nation would be immune from change when it joined the UN. Every resolution affects your nation's stats- regardless of economic or political system. That's the way I look at it- is the resolution so strong that it would, in essence, effect such a huge change as to restrict the categories UN nations can be?

"Advancing of industry" would probably go under "not necessarily". One of the subcategories is the express opposite of "Free Trade", while the other categories would probably prove irrelevant where the entire economy is under government, union or other kinds of public ownership. Even more so in the case of anarcho-syndicalists, where there is no "government" as most of us know the term.

What it would make extremely difficult is moderate brands of socialism, particularly social democracy, which is okay with capitalism as long as it's controlled tightly, and usually features a welfare state. You might think of Scandiniavian countries or New Zealand from the fantasy series "Real World".

We think there is less coupling between political ideologies and economic ideologies than you assume, Mr Kelly. True, there is a strong correlation between socialist governments and managed economies, but that is more a factor in the authoritarian nature of the governments concerned than a feature of socialism per se. Socialism itself is purely concerned with creating an equality and fraternity between citizens, something that is generally managed through the taxation and welfare systems.

Similarly pure communism is even less affected by economic ideologies; since the state is the sole owner of property, there is no market to manage. In the (admittedly theoretical) purely communist state, money itself is an irrelevance since no individual can in effect buy anything.

Turning to ourselves, it is not the social welfare streak in Gobbannaen national politics that impels us to favour managed markets over free, but our Liberal instincts that insist that we do our utmost to create a fair trading system that encourages growth for all. We understand perfectly that others do not see such a system as fair; such is their right, and since they tend to view the situation from a perspective as beneficiaries of free trading systems we can entirely sympathise with such an attitude. Requiring us to accept free trade proposals may offend our instints -- and generally does -- but it does not ban the underlying ideology. We may have to take different routes to encourage liberalism, but we are not prevented from doing so.

In summary, there are shades of grey here. We are not talking overt bans of political ideologies, such as those foolish proposals which seek to mandate or bad democracy. Sensible Free Trade proposals, like Human Rights proposals and indeed more or less any other progressive category, will tend to affect the expression of a political ideology, making it more or less difficult to achieve the desired aims, but not actually preventing the ideology itself.

I thank the delegates who have taken time from more urgent matters to scribble a reply to this largely philosophical question.

If I fail to respond to points you’ve made, it will not be from any disdain for your position, but rather because of my inability to fully comprehend it.

On that note, I must thank Dr Hodz for his reply, which I do fully comprehend.

Our President for Life has apparently claimed at some stage that we are, in fact, squeaky-clean socialists, though I have some reservations on the squeakiness and cleanliness, owing to my position as a magically ungifted human in a magical nation.

Which brings me to Cdr Chiang’s contribution.

Muggle-protection statutes would violate the rights of magicocracies, wouldn't they? I'm sure that argument hasn't been made yet. But even if it were, would you want it to be lent credence?

As Ardchoille’s equivalent of a Muggle, I would certainly want to violate the rights of magicocracies that oppress my kind. That would be, for me, a spectacularly obvious case in which human rights would over-ride any consideration of a nation’s raison d’etre, just as a ban on slavery is necessary despite its effect on any one nation’s economic well-being.

So, no, I wouldn’t want any “violation of rights” argument lent credence in that case. I don’t think I’m talking about “violation of rights” anyway, in the national sense. I think I’m dealing with something more basic than that, as the delegate from Rubina suggested. I definitely don’t see this as a simple “national sovereignty” discussion.

Should Cdr Chiang wish to indulge in further point-scoring/hair-splitting – I’m not about to, for obvious reasons (*points to his own hair, which resembles a dandelion-puff about to seed*) – it is not my contention that my own nation violates our basic rights. There is, though, a certain lack of understanding in Ardchoille which my appointment to this delegation is apparently going to alleviate, condescending and patronising though I consider the appointment to be.

However, I’m aware that this is not the central point of Cdr Chiang’s argument, which I understand as saying that I am apparently expecting human rights proposals to make tyrants less tyrannical, and furtherment of democracy proposals to make dictators less dictatorial.

No, Cdr Chiang; I’m not. What successful human rights and furtherment of democracy proposals do is express the forceful view of the United Nations that these are good things to have, and that the UN considers them important enough to over-rule all other considerations and oblige all nations who remain UN members to endorse them.

That seems to leave me lined up with Snefaldia’s delegate, who bounced briefly off the Fourth Wall to say that our nations knew when we joined the UN that its decisions would affect us. I concur in a general sense with Ambassador Shandreth’s conclusion that each decision should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Add this to the remark by Prince Rhodri of Gobbannium that Requiring us to accept free trade proposals may offend our instincts -- and generally does -- but it does not ban the underlying ideology.
and you can see why I’m confused, particularly since I come from a society that in many ways fits the Kellessekian description of something that makes the issue difficult; one of the moderate brands of socialism, particularly social democracy, which is okay with capitalism as long as it's controlled tightly, and usually features a welfare state.

I’m in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with bits of what almost everyone has said.

But there remains the issue raised by Ambassador Talone.
[a partial answer may say that] ... protectionist trade is not limited to economic systems of the socialist model and thus are not specifically associated with an ideology. We're not sure if that is completely true, though, because the converse, that free trade can be readily practiced by socialist systems, on the face should also be true, and it's not.

Capitalist nations have maintained their ideologies without international free trade.

I feel that socialist and communist nations cannot maintain their ideologies without some form of protectionism, however limited.

So, while accepting in general terms Prince Rhodri’s contention that free trade proposals don’t overtly ban an ideology, I still feel that they do, covertly, and that a sufficiently comprehensive series of them would be an outright ban.

Which at least leaves me somewhat ahead of where I was when I started this discussion, so I thank you all, and hope it will continue.

(Though, should anyone who is old, bald, grumpy and leads a Dwarven delegation choose to mention that “the law means what the law says”, I would have to say ... [pauses to wonder why his President is waving at him so frantically] ... to say, that in this case, it doesn’t say.)

-- William Edward (Bill) Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS.

"Hmm.

So, according to the reasoning we're using now, shouldn't Furtherment of Democracy proposals be illegal? I mean, Akimonad's a dictatorships, and so are many other nations in the UN. By the UN's own rules, this would be illegal, because the proposal wouldn't apply to all "reasonable" nations.

So, what then? Is that correct, or is the logic flawed?

My new vice-ambassador has the answer."

A man with slick black hair and pointy ears walks in.

"Your logic is flawed."

The man sits down behind the lectern Dr. Hodz is using.

"Thank you, Spock."

~Dr. Jules Hodz,
Delegate, Conservative Paradise

~Spock,
Deputy Ambassador

We should remember something important here - I doubt we're talking about an entire category being illegal, but some resolutions that would fall under that category. Furtherment of Democracy resolutions don't necessarily have to ban dictatorships. Free Trade resolutions don't have to ban tariffs or economic regulation. But they might, and the question really is, would that be considered as an ideological ban?

If you were to subvert the means of dictatorship such that they became impossible, such as, for instance, mandating term limits, that would probably be an ideological ban. Likewise, what I believe we're discussing is whether banning policies aimed at economic protection subverts certain socioeconomic ideologies as to make them so difficult to maintain that it would basically amount to an ideological ban, and thus be illegal.

OoC:

I think it's probably largely combination of two things:

1) Having a category called "Free Trade"
2) The indirect nature of the effective ideological ban

Now, 1) I think is pretty simple - it would strike people as being pretty daft if you had a category called "Free Trade" and banned free trade. The second is trickier. I've always seen the ideological ban as being direct bans on particular political structures, as opposed to proposals that merely effectively make such a political system slightly unworkable - A nation could remain communist in a world with free trade, it would just be bloody tricky to be such; whereas it would be impossible to have a dictatorship with term limits. Of course, in the NSUN, I think it's fair to say that pretty much any proposal effects some system negetively and another positively, and thus I don't see merely disadvantaging communist etc. nations as being a major issue, no matter how heavily they are inconvenienced.

Dear Honourable Delegates of the UN,

Just for your knowledge, the protectionist economy is a very current issue. I would like to mention a country that is being on the spotlight: France. The new President of France, Nicholas Sarkozy is imposing a pragmatic economy throughout the nation, according to the Financial Times Newspaper.

I would like to say that socialist and communist government can be a manipulator or an interventionist of the national economy but if you look at China for example, its main political ideology is based on Communism but its economic system is someplace near free market trade. I do know that the economy is somewhat state-controlled, but the nation is still widely known for its booming economy. If we look at its neighbour north Korea, we can find out that it is absolutely a contrasting example. The country is communist and its economy reflects one of the economic downfall of the Soviet Union. So, I am just saying that Communist or Socialist government can turn out to be an excelling system in terms of economy.

Thank You Very Much,

Yours Sincerely,
The Representative of the Model United Nations (REGION)

Interesting advertising there....

In an entirely ooc post....I read the newspaper today (This is in fact a rare occurance as the availability of English newspapers is a leeetle scarce) and a huge section dwelled on pure capitalism, drifting towards neo-liberalism - which apparently is bad for economies, and a moderate form of protectionist capitalism where the promotion of local businesses, local assets and smaller companies through protectionst tariffs, taxing out foreign corporations, taxing transport etc would loosen the 'stranglehold' the few large companies have over countries. It should be noted that the paper is fairly left-wing, but the attack on neo-liberalism is continued by a review of Naomi Klein's book.

So what's my point? Simply that it isn't just 'commies' and 'socialists' wanting protectionist policy, some 'capitalists' do too. Just look at America's attempts at looking after it's own iron interests. So in fact the 'free trade' group is a minority in terms of sectors wanting it.
The 'Free Trade' category seems to be one of the few types of proposals that majorly interfere with the NS and ideolgicial area that pass. Obviously an industrial nation is never pleased when an environmental bill passes, but this does not stop their industry, just adds a few annoying responsibilities. A nation wanting to keep international business out simply cannot under free trade.

NB: Said paper does not reflect personal views. Heck I'm not sure what mine are anymore.

Proposals in the 'Free Trade' category, as the representative of Kelssek has already pointed out, do not have to be anti-protectionist measures. All that inclusion in this category requires is that they remove a "barrier to trade"' of some kind, and there are other sorts of barriers that could be affected instead of tariffs and other protectionist measures...
Consider my own government's successul resolution on Meteorological Cooperation, which lowers the barrier of not knowing what the weather (which can be very important in some fields of economic activity, such as farming and shipping) will do next, for example; or the Cobdenian resolution called the 'Maritime Safety Standards Act' and the Norderian resolution on 'Chemical Transport Standards', both of which use the introduction of safety measures to reduce peoples' potential unwillingness to engage in the forms of trade concerned due to worry about risks; or my government's so-far-unsuccessful proposal on the 'International Transit of Goods', which would simply prevent nations blocking the flow of trade through their territories without good reason...

Now, what about the legality of the 'Social Justice' category, whose effects are surely more likely to hinder the hardline Capitalist, Economic Libertarian, and Objectivist ideologies than 'Free Trade' resolutions (in general) are to hinder Socialist and Communist ones?

Well, I wasn't asking why the Free Trade category was legal, I was asking why free trade proposals were legal. By which I meant proposals that mandate international free trade. It's not necessarily, as several ambassadors have pointed out, always a Socialists vs Capitalists thing.

It is for me, though; maybe not as much as it was when I posed the question. I still think that mandatory free trade completely eliminates the possibility of any form of government that chooses to manipulate its economy by restricting free trade. From where I stand it acts like an ideological ban, but for others, I can see, it's a question of degree.

Looks like I'll have to depend on a balance being kept by all these "reasonable nations" I keep hearing about.The inclusion of standard loopho--exemptions -- based on culture, environmental considerations and so on in free trade proposals would be helpful.

I can see, though, that from some of you it's just not gonna happen, any more than I'll be giving up on the subject. But I guess it's better throwing paper than punches, so thanks for your replies.

-- William Edward (Bill) Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS,

[OOC metagaming perspective]

I can't speak for Hack or any other UN Game mod, but my interpretation of an Ideology Ban proposal is one that sweeps the entirely of a government type out of existence. Therefore, proposals to eliminate ALL theocratic activity, ALL democracies, ALL dictatorships, ALL communism, etc. from the game would qualify for proposal deletion and a nation UN warning.

Proposals that eliminate an element, even a key element, from the ideological wish list of any given government type are generally fine. In fact, I can't think of a single proposal that isn't offensive or counter to some governmental type (pure anarchies would hate ALL of them, naturally).

UN proposals, like all laws, are about compromise. If you want to belong to this organisation, check your principles and ideals at the door. Those of us who have been here for years did so long ago, as is obvious to anyone who reads us.