[GA - Failed] Sensible Limits on Industry Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
bowloftoast

bowloftoast

Not Just For Breakfast
Discord
bowloftoast

ga.jpg

Sensible Limits on Industry Act
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety
Proposed by: Islands of unity | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Recognizing that privately-owned businesses might prioritize profits above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,

Recognizing also that state-owned businesses, especially ones whose managers face potential punishment if they fail to meet quotas, might likewise prioritize output of goods and services above the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment,

and

Believing that the health, safety, and well-being of people and of the environment should receive reasonable protection;

Hereby,
1). Authorizes member nations to Involuntarily Dissolve any privately-owned business operations within their territories if those operations unreasonably impinge on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment;

2). Allows member nations to seize the assets of any privately-owned business that unreasonably impinges on the health, safety, and well-being of the people or of the environment provided that those assets be sold in order to reimburse the shareholders and employees of the Dissolved company;

3). Requires that member nations allow their state-owned industries to act only in ways that do not impinge unreasonably on the health, safety, and well-being of people or of the environment, and must take these needs properly into consideration when setting any targets for those industries;

4). Requires each member nation to establish a set of standards for these matters, subject to any restrictions set by earlier GA resolutions that are still in force, that applies equally to all businesses and industries operating in a given field of activity within that nation regardless of its ownership.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
Last edited:
Ministry IFV:
While this proposal has clear ambition to achieve something positive, it suffers by the author’s decision to rush it through the review process. The result is a hazy, half-formed blueprint, that outlines an immediate leap from vague premise of offence, to the most extreme consequence. There is little explanation as to how a nation would reasonably get from A to B, or, any detailed justification as to why nations should have this sort of unfettered power over industry. Reasonable regulation on the business sector isn’t a bad thing, but there must be some manner of due process. Businesses need to know precisely what sort of actions would put them in peril, and, surely there must be other measures a nation can take prior to asset seizure and liquidation. Much of what this proposal sets out to protect is already covered by existing legislation with clearer definitions, more reasonable steps outlined, and less radical outcomes.

For this reason The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against.

This proposal has been drafted for less than a week; there are numerous issues present in the text that have not been corrected due to the author's rush to submit the proposal.

Essentially, the resolution gives member nations power they already have to enforce vague yet broad reaching regulations they get to choose how to enforce.
 
Last edited:
I think this resolution goes too far, giving too much power to member nations to basically undermine private industry.
Surely there is a health and safety act in existence and Environment protection act in force already?

Against
 
Against.
This proposal is a bit skimpy on detail and definition, but would grant an extraordinary amount of power to member nations. Words like 'unreasonable' are far too vague for a regulation of this nature.
I'm not entirely opposed to a nation's right to ultimately shut down a repeat-offending business, but there is no process outlined here, that would provide a road-map to such a strong end move.
In the proposed case of an asset seizure and liquidation, I would have liked to see greater priority given to compensation for workers - who would take the brunt of the harm from such a decision by the state - over shareholders.
Poorly thought out, and could have benefited from more time in review.
 
Last edited:
I think I like where the author is coming from, but this was an eye-popping resolution and not in a good way. I don’t like to throw the word crazy around but...

Against
 
Against.

1) So you take away the surety that my business could operate to the extent that I wish it to operate without fear of direct government infringement. You take away the ground underneath every business. No business would operate in this environment. And if they do, they're incredibly desperate or are stupidly confident.
2) This isn't insurance for #1. There still is no ground underneath my feet. Just a shitty net that says that the government will reimburse me for pennies on the dollar.
3) Superfluous in relation to #1 and #2.
 
Yukkira:
1) So you take away the surety that my business could operate to the extent that I wish it to operate without fear of direct government infringement. You take away the ground underneath every business. No business would operate in this environment. And if they do, they're incredibly desperate or are stupidly confident.
Click to expand...

I do though have to say I entirely disagree with this line of thinking. Your argument here is that "Businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want". Which is absolutely ridiculous, under that line of thinking I should be allowed to create a business that's entire business model is hiding radioactive waste under school playground, and HOW DARE the government attempt to stop me from accomplishing my goal.
 
Lord Lore:
I do though have to say I entirely disagree with this line of thinking. Your argument here is that "Businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want". Which is absolutely ridiculous, under that line of thinking I should be allowed to create a business that's entire business model is hiding radioactive waste under school playground, and HOW DARE the government attempt to stop me from accomplishing my goal.
Click to expand...

Where else do you store radioactive waste...??

AGAINST.
 
For. The word "Sensible" is right there in the title so it must be a sensible proposal.
 
Lord Lore:
I do though have to say I entirely disagree with this line of thinking. Your argument here is that "Businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want". Which is absolutely ridiculous, under that line of thinking I should be allowed to create a business that's entire business model is hiding radioactive waste under school playground, and HOW DARE the government attempt to stop me from accomplishing my goal.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree with this. Clearly Lore, you read my mind. I hate children anyways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top