NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Free Trade
Effect: (Unknown, help me out here)
Proposed by: East Ying
Fellow nations of the WA,

REALIZING, That smuggling over borders is common in todays harsh world.
RECOGNIZING, That nations whos populace may be smuggling and that nation is wrongly blamed for the Smugglers actions.
NOTING FURTHER, That no restrictions/laws have been enforced upon persons who smuggle
OBSERVING, That the increase of smuggling has lessened the trade market significantly.
TAKING NOTE, That the lessening of the trade market over a period of time can lead to the fall of global economy in whole.
RECOGNIZING, The fact that all people of WA nations have certain rights and
REALIZES, That banning smuggling is not an option because of this
FURTHER REALIZES, That because of these rights, only restrictions up to a certain point can be issued and,
HAVING EXAMINED, The economic scenario this world is in and
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, the rights of a nation's populace, this resolution
RESTRICTS: Smuggling of over $800 in any given month by 1 indivudual
RESTRICTS: WA nations from placing blame on another nation
RESTRICTS: Any sole individual to smuggle anything over $800 in any given month.
RESTRICTS: The smuggling of items into a country where those items are illegal.
URGES: All WA members to increase border control, patrols and police to stop Smuggling
URGES: All WA members to take into account this proposal.

Effect is to lessen the use of things like drugs? I like it, it's a pretty good idea. So why would you want to establish another police force? (ISP?) (Just wondering)

The WA is not allowed a police force of its own.

The police force is one issue, should you not suggest that each nation takes steps to stregthen is border police/customs and excise inspectors?

Further, there is no reference to the possibility of people smuggling.

Effect is to lessen the use of things like drugs? I like it, it's a pretty good idea. So why would you want to establish another police force? (ISP?) (Just wondering) -Cookiton
Well, i threw that bit in there because this is the first resolution I've written in over a year, and just thought it made a good touch. But due to some criticsm, I'll take it out...

The police force is one issue, should you not suggest that each nation takes steps to stregthen is border police/customs and excise inspectors?
Further, there is no reference to the possibility of people smuggling.
-Jujuburghia

Well, you confused me there. Do you mean I SHOULD suggest that each nation takes steps? And the reference to people smuggling, well its a resolution, there was no referece to single-hulled tankers when that resolution came out, eh? Smugglging is just another... I'll put it this way, smuggling is the new 'Single Hulled Tanker'. =).

Sorry about the police, like i said, that will be removed.

Okay, due to Urgench;s new "Nomad Rights" thread, I will have to revise a little.

Preparing to add:
AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT: That nomadic peoples may carry illegal items, and
REALIZING: That nomadic peoples may depend on these items
SUGGESTING THAT:
Resrtictions be placed on Nomadic people from carrying more than 700 pounds of illegal items.
DEFINING: Nomadic people as people who migrate from place to place in search of natural resources and/or a habitable place.

Any suggestions? Urgench, any suggestions from specifically you?

I think I've gone far enough to say that The effect would be significant. If it is in the right category, which it might very well not be. Can someone else help me out on this proposal?:headbang:

The government of the emperor of Urgench suggests that your proposal might be better placed in the international security category, we see no reason why nomads should receive any special treatment in your resolution. We believe that the law should apply to all persons equally and with out fear or favour or regard to any one person or group, equality before and under the law is one of the most fundemental of all rights.We wish you luck with your resolution, it looks very interesting.

yours e.t.c. ,

Clarification, please: As this would still restrict the smuggling of illegal goods, and the authorities would still need to check on the goods being transported across their borders to make sure (a) that illegal goods weren't being brought in after all & (b) that people weren't exceeding the specified maximum value, what you're essentially talking about is setting a 'duty-free' allowance of $800 per person per month (even in any nations that might currently have higher limits?) isn't it?

H'mm.

By the way, you can't specify an amount in any particular currency, because that would be either a 'RL reference' (if you use a currency from RL) or 'branding' (if you use the currrency of a specific NS nation) and would consequently be illegal either way...

Understood, these things will be taken into account. But SMU, standard monetary unit. SMU basically means all currencies, meaning that it will be equal to 800 USD in every country.

The effect would be to inhibit the free transfer of goods. It seems like a rather stupid law. I ouldn't even consider accepting it.

Minor syntactical bit: please lose the commas and capital letters after the capitalised words. I'll live with the partial sentences, but those commas are bugging the hell out of me and make it really hard to read.

Well done on constructing a chain of logic proving that smuggling causes world recession. I don't believe a word of it, but at least it's properly constructed. On the other hand, I can't think of a single WA resolution that prevents you from banning smuggling wholesale either.

The whole "RESTRICTS" section worries me mildly, because each clause (particularly the last one) can be read in so many different ways. Possibly I'd be less worried if the colons disappeared, but I'm not sure. I am sure that it's illegal at the moment; the limits are listed in "$", which are to the best of my knowledge a fictional currency (OOC: or in other worlds this is a Real Life reference). Given that there isn't a universally recognised stable reference currency -- thank deity of your choice -- fixing numbers like this is rather hard. Fixing the numbers also guarantees that this resolution would have to be repealed some time in the future, when whatever $800 is supposed to be amounts to peanuts.

Finally, the last "URGES" is irrelevant. WA resolutions aren't in any sense optional.