[Draft] Repeal National Economic Freedoms

Clean Land

Clean Land

TNPer
National Economic Freedoms disallows further World Assembly general restrictions of commerce, unless that commerce would be extremely dangerous to the populace of a nation as a whole.
This restriction is unacceptable. International matters on commerce do not need to be that dangerous to give serious and solid reasons to legislate on matters with international effect. International legislation could benefit all member nations, especially on matters related to limited or even shared resources, like fresh air. For example, when a beneficial and a not so beneficial product share usage of a limited resource, the not so beneficial product being produced reduces the avaliability of the beneficial product internationally.

Thus, the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 68.
Click to expand...
National Economic Freedoms disallows further World Assembly general restrictions of commerce, unless that commerce would be extremely dangerous for The People of a nation as a whole.

Problem:This restriction is unacceptable. International matters on commerce do not need to be that dangerous to give serious and solid reasons to legislate on matters with international effect. International legislation could benefit all member nations, especially on matters related to limited or even shared resources, like fresh air.

Example: When a beneficial and a not so beneficial product share usage of a limited resource, the not so beneficial product being produced reduces the avaliability of the beneficial product internationally.

Thus, the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 68.
Click to expand...

Noting that National Economic Freedoms disallows further World Assembly general restrictions of commerce, unless that commerce would be extremely dangerous for the people of a nation as a whole.

Realizing that international matters on commerce do not need to be that dangerous to give reason to legislate on matters with international effect.

Realizing that commerce is usually an international matter, because avaliabillity of resources and capabilites are different for each state, encouraging and neccessiating international trade, and because big corporations operate internationally,
,
Condemning General Assembly Resolution #68 in it's attempt to to keep control over commerce in the hands of individual nations,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 68.
Click to expand...
Noting that National Economic Freedoms disallows further World Assembly general restrictions of commerce, unless that commerce would be extremely dangerous for the people of a nation as a whole.

Realizing that international matters on commerce do not need to be that dangerous to give reason to legislate on matters with international effect.

Realizing that commerce is usually an international matter, because availability of resources and capabilities are different for each state, encouraging the necessity of international trade, and because big corporations operate internationally,
,
Condemning General Assembly Resolution #68 in its attempt to to keep control over commerce in the hands of individual nations,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 68.
Click to expand...
Fifth draft. Please provide feedback!
 
I agree with the overall idea of a repeal. Just make sure you format and structure the repeal correctly or it will be rejected.
 
What do I need to change?
I have a preamble with the reasoning, and then the active clause(s), in this case just one, the repeal.
I have given this a bit more structure.
 
Well, let's see. I'm going to start off by providing a link to NEF, which I would recommend doing if/when this is posted to the NSGA forum, not because it's a rule, but it is generally considered good etiquette.

Target Resolution: General Assembly Resolution #68: National Economic Freedoms

Next up, I'm just going to suggest some edits. They're minor for now, and mostly stylistic. (It's 4am, I really need to get some sleep aha) Anyways,

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the ability to self-regulate commercial enterprises within their jurisdiction is important to the development of a nations economy,

APPLAUDING General Assembly Resolution #68 in it's attempt to to keep control over commerce in the hands of individual nations,

HOWEVER noting that National Economic Freedoms disallows further World Assembly general restrictions of commerce, unless that commerce would be extremely dangerous for toThe People the populace of a nation,as a whole.

RECOGNIZING that Problem:This restriction is unacceptable. international matters on commerce do not need to be that need not be dangerous to give serious and solid reasons to legislate on matters with international effect. International legislation could benefit all member nations, especially on matters related to limited or even shared resources, like fresh air.

Example: When a beneficial and a not so beneficial product share usage of a limited resource, the not so beneficial product being produced reduces the avaliability of the beneficial product internationally.

THE World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 68.
Click to expand...

That's what I've got for now aha, mostly because its becoming a wall of BBCode and I'm almost nodding off at the keyboard. I'll have more suggested edits to come later on today.
 
I don't like these changes. They clutter up my preamble with these capslocked words, remove parts of my arguments(like my example) and praise the legislation for something that is not true(regulation and standardization are often better international than national, with few exceptions such as import taxes)
 
Formatting is going to get you thrown out if not done properly. This mode of...
Point A [COLON] The point...
Point B [COLON] The point...
Action [COLON] The action
... flat out is not in compliance with the standards of writing international law. Deropia's changes brought the draft in compliance with correct formatting. It's up to you to change the content of the draft to what you want.

Look at any resolution that the real life United Nations issued and format your resolutions in the exact same manner: http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/
 
James Urquhart:
It's gradually getting better.
Click to expand...
It is indeed, but there's still a lot of work to do.

Noting that National Economic Freedoms disallows further World Assembly general restrictions of commerce, unless that commerce would be extremely dangerous for Tthe Ppeople of a nation as a whole.
Click to expand...
I'm having a hard time following what you mean here. Can you explain it? Does this have to do with the last clause of #68 "REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless ... The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations"

Realizing that international matters on commerce do not need to be that dangerous to give reason to legislate on matters with international effect.
Click to expand...
Again, unsure what you mean here. I feel like I'm having my strings pulled in multiple directions. Can you be clearer? Is this again related to 68's last clause?

Realizing that commerce is usually an international matter,
Click to expand...
Can you explain why this is? Your answer should be added to the text of this proposal. Also, don't add words that create uncertainty.

Condemning General Assembly Resolution #68 in it's attempt to to keep control over commerce in the hands of individual nations,
Click to expand...
So your argument is an IntFed stance? Is it only because you've adopted an IntFed stance that you want this repealed?

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 68.
Click to expand...

Before continuing on, I want you to think about this question. "Why am I repealing GA 68?" Which one of the following best describes your thought?
A. I just don't like this resolution and I think it should be removed.
B. Ooo... shiny badges...
C. This is a seriously flawed piece of legislation that is doing more harm than good.
D. I have an idea for a new resolution, but this one stands in my way.

If your thought is A, I'd be hard pressed to support this. The WA isn't about the whims of one nation.
If your thought is B, just stop.
If your thought is C, you should pick apart as many lines of the resolution as you can to justify your reasoning. If you're focused in on one line of it, you need to have a compelling argument that outweighs any of the benefits the rest of the resolution provides. So far, I don't see it. Currently, your argument seems to be an IntFed-only reasoning ("The New World Order must control all commerce everywhere!"), which is no better than a NatSov-only argument (the latter of which is illegal if not supported by other means)
If your thought is D, I'd like to see the other proposal.
 
I'm having a hard time following what you mean here. Can you explain it? Does this have to do with the last clause of #68 "REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless ... The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations"
Click to expand...
Yes, that's it.
Again, unsure what you mean here. I feel like I'm having my strings pulled in multiple directions. Can you be clearer? Is this again related to 68's last clause?
Click to expand...
Correct, it is. It's too restrictive.
Can you explain why this is? Your answer should be added to the text of this proposal. Also, don't add words that create uncertainty.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm its a bit difficult to explain, but I'll try. Products are usually sold and produced in multiple countries, especially sold. Products and especially resources aren't produced or found equally in every state. Undesirable products being produced in one state legally can seep in other member states as black market products,and/or waste internationally scarce resources disproportionally.
Not many products are exclusively sold or produced in the same nation. Thus, blocking off legislation in that area is not a good idea!
So your argument is an IntFed stance? Is it only because you've adopted an IntFed stance that you want this repealed?
Click to expand...
The argument is more like "The area blocked off is mainly of international interest and has mainly international implications, and should have never been blocked off in the first place."
C. This is a seriously flawed piece of legislation that is doing more harm than good.
D. I have an idea for a new resolution, but this one stands in my way.
Click to expand...
Mostly C(although possibly D, too).
I do have many rough ideas of good resolutions blocked by this one, but none currently prepared. But it isn't just about me writing resolutions, it is about the signal this resolution sends("The WA doesnt want to legislate here anymore") to all prospective authors. Someone has an idea, a regular says "National Economic Freedoms" and the idea goes down the paper bin(I have checked the forums, National Economic Freedoms does have such an effect)
It is a blocker that blocks something that should not be blocked.
And the clause that does something isn't that good either, sure, you get compensated, but you get nearly always compensated now, even if the government wants to seize money to pay off its debts(I am not sure if there is another problem: Do taxes count as seizing money? I'd say yes but... not sure.)
 
Suggestions:

Noting that National Economic Freedoms disallows further World Assembly general restrictions of commerce, unless in the case that commerce would be extremely dangerous for the people of a nation as a whole.

Realizing that international matters on commerce do not need to be that dangerous to give reason to legislate on matters with international effect.

Realizing that commerce is usually an international matter, because avaliabillity availability of resources and capabilites capabilities are different for each state, encouraging and neccessiating international trade the necessity of international trade, and because big corporations operate internationally,

Condemning General Assembly Resolution #68 in it's its attempt to to keep control over commerce in the hands of individual nations,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 68.
Click to expand...
Virtually all of these suggestions are over grammar and spelling with a few being a change in wording. Suggestions in green are additions, suggestions in red are removals.
 
It is nice to see a newcomer to the Region get so interested in WA writing. Do you have any experience in other regions doing to this, Clean Land?
 
James Urquhart:
It is nice to see a newcomer to the Region get so interested in WA writing. Do you have any experience in other regions doing to this, Clean Land?
Click to expand...
I already drafted a proposal in the GA forums, ignored the advice of several experienced WA editors, and saw my proposal being shot down with less than 15% support.
I want to do it better this time.
 
Clean Land:
James Urquhart:
It is nice to see a newcomer to the Region get so interested in WA writing. Do you have any experience in other regions doing to this, Clean Land?
Click to expand...
I already drafted a proposal in the GA forums, ignored the advice of several experienced WA editors, and saw my proposal being shot down with less than 15% support.
I want to do it better this time.
Click to expand...
I see
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top