«12. . .915916917918919920921. . .2,1812,182»
By all means, vote nay.
Also my intention is to break apart the government monopoly on judicial and legal services.
The government restricts competition by only recognizing one Court.
And the CEO or any other interested party will immediately sue to have it thrown out as unconstitutional. Apparently you think there is a legal problem with it as well:
When are you going to stop quoting collectivist-socialist views on what constitutes a free market? If the government enters any portion of the private sector, that portion is no longer a free market. See those examples I gave you from Roosevelt's New Deal. Government does not compete fairly in the private sector because the private sector does not have all the advantages government enjoys.
That is pretty much the way I see it.
Unless someone sues to keep it off the ballot on constitutional grounds.
Hello!
To be more accurate, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, The court made no ruling on anything.
So... if I understand this right... you are saying that you threw out a Court case alleging legal conflict... even though I may have been right?
Well this is an interesting turn of events.
My mistake. I did not know that court dismissals were not to be taken as official. (see previous post)
Yes. I'll tell you what, if you can tell me how I am wrong, I will shadap about it. Solemn promise.
Violations of Point 2 of Inherent Rights of Membership
1. On the one hand, government cannot compete with the private market, yet our government imposes a monopoly on court by only recognizing the rulings of a single court. aka Manipulation
My solution: Simply have the government recognize rulings of any court, provided that they follow the exact same procedures and meet the same standards of the Supreme Court. E.g. Britain Circa 19th Century
2. The fact that there is a public court. If the government cannot legally provide services, then it cannot provide judicial services. aka Competition
My solution: Current Bill
Violations of Point 3 of Inherent Rights of Membership
1. According to you, RP and GP is the same, and the provision of services is RP. By your definition, the provision of judicial services are in violation of Point 3.
Unless we have no taxation or state-enforced monopoly, or regulation. Like in CP.
"when nothing is preventing people from making trades or forcing people to make trades—that results in a free market"
Libertarian Source: http://www.libertarianism.org/media/libertarian-view/what-libertarians-mean-free-market
It is perfectly possible for a government to provide something freely.
---
As for my intentions, they are to undo the Supreme Court monopoly. You obviously have better things to do than to do your jobs, and we cannot pick a more competent court because of the current laws.
---
FREE THE MARKETS - GET RID OF THE COURT MONOPOLY
No, I meant what I wrote
Surely I need not define with prejudice for you(?)
''misconduct on the part of the party who filed the claim''
It's one thing if you disagree with me. But I filed a perfectly legitimate claim. Your laws are filled with conflict.
It was my understanding that the Supreme Court already repeals laws that conflict with each other.
---
I also want to point out that my previous corruption claim against CapPro (vocals) was voted against even though I brought forth 3 different definitions of the word corruption and examples of each to demonstrate corruption.
---
This brings me to the point of Court monopoly. The government will never hold itself accountable. It is a monopoly. You will do everything possible to avoid doing your jobs because ''you have lives outside of NS''. You have no incentive to ensure that laws do not conflict with each other. You have no incentive to make sure your rulings are consistent. You interpret laws as you see fit yet you claim to not legislate from the bench. Your own CapPro is the most arrogant and condescending Nation I have ever seen, and yet you interpret that as "within the limits of respectful posting" (which Armus Republic seems to disagree on, see forums)
---
I rest my case. It is perfectly natural to act this way when you are a monopoly. And I am not surprised that you do everything possible to keep your monopoly.
1This Capitalist Paradise is not governed by english law or a USA constitution law or sharia or these 10 Comandments It is governed by its this Constitution of Capitalist Paradise
This Constitution was voted by the free market participating nations of Capitalist Paradise to be the laws for this region Included in this Constitution words provide for a legal problem resolving court which has the name "Supreme Court"
In this way these court is the legit body for legal problem solving
Somethings this "constitution" does not say, is a Capitalist Paradise member can not make a court of his own. Some might call this a "private arbiter" I think this a good idea.
Now
This "constitution" also makes the WA Delegate and the Founder "Executors of regional membership" This means that in the regional control only they can eject a nation from Capitalist Paradise No one can force their hand Not this Supreme Court nor a private court
It is by honor of agreement that they will follow the recomendings of the court, but it still it is their perogative
2, I am glad you making this point In a private civil court the disagreeing parties will agree to abide the decisions of the private arbiter
Unfortunately the legal service of a criminal court can not be private and also dispense justice
For example
You accuse me of genocide against minority Cybernomixians
I hire a private court composed of Saddam Hussein Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan and slip a few notes under the bench to insure my innocence
This is not justice
Or-We fail to agree on the composition of our court - stalemate
This is not justice
The nations of Capitalist Paradise expect justice from the court that they elected
3.1 Irrelelavent even if decipherable
I hope you will keep your solemn promise
So I must
This means simply that you may not try your claim again in this court
You do realize I was being sarcastic, right? What serious person writes "mrawh!!!"?
But they restrict that agreement to a single court. Kinda like with the Postal Service. This is clearly a violation.
I love how the proceedings of a court is perceived as different just because it is private. Courts, private or public, have court composition and consequences for violations already pre-agreed to. So that is a non-issue.
Your example of bribery; It is much easier to bribe you if you are a monopoly, than if you are one among many courts. If you are one among many, one corrupt ruling means that neither the defense, nor the prosecution (out of fear that they may later be bribed against) will use that court again and the free market will take its course to best serve the consumer. As a monopoly, you might as well make it an auction.
Theory aside, private courts already have dispensed criminal law. Circa 18th century Britain.
The government currently engages in RP beyond oversight. Unless you think that the court is not an RP.... you wouldn't be.. going back on your word now are you *gasp*
I will indeed abide by my promise. But not if you make arguments that are normative or factually incorrect.
Two Vote Counters needed for an upcoming legislative poll. TG me!
I am struggling through the recent posts to try to make sense of the opposing viewpoints. Correct me if I'm mistaken. You want to establish a set of parallel institutions rivalling those voted for and operating under the general legislative and constitutional umbrella of the CP region. A member nation may then take an issue to the "Free Court" or the "Supreme Court" or even to both and get a ruling on their action. Neither court (or any of the rival institutions) will be able to overrule the parallel institution.
If all that is correct then how is that any different than setting up an entirely separate region in NationStates?
On the other, older, issue--the rival bank--I believe we had a set of goals and performance criteria. One of these was to increase membership by 200. Has that yet been implemented and how close to that additional 200 members are we?
I'll bet I'm not the only one reading all this who is at least a little bit confused about the aims and the criteria of all these proposals.
----------------
PS: I am trying to set up NS++ for a WA "nation" as I thought that was necessary to unlock some features unavailable in the flat browser version for non-WA nations. I'm getting a few errors and the forum thread suggests I'm not the only one. If anybody is an expert at NS++ for Firefox please telegram me. I hope it's all right to ask this on the RMB! If not a mod can delete this part of my post.
----------------
Let me separate the 2 issues here. There is the bill, and then the court monopoly.
My bill allows for government to own things without taxing Nations and without forcing Nations to buy anything the government offers, thus a free market and not interventionism. The only way a trade can take place in this circumstance is if both parties are better off. Being a proponent of win-win situations and free markets, I am all for this.
It only provides government with the ability to buy, sell, own, or offer a service, if ever it deems it beneficial. The bill does not oblige the government to engage in any market activity, contrary to the lie that has been advertised by CapPro.
The government contradicts itself when it says that it can offer the service of a court when in fact it should not be offering any service according to Point 2 of Inherent Rights of Membership. If the service of a court is legitimate, then the service of anything is legitimate. You cannot have it both ways.
---
Now, the court is a separate issue.
In my debate with CapPro, he claimed that the court should not be held accountable for their rulings on any criteria, should allow unlawful laws to exist, should be able to interpret laws as they see fit, and they should have the right to refuse cases on any basis with no explanation because ''they have lives outside of NS''. Well, isn't that nice? You get to have a job with minimal responsibility, no accountability and you even get refuse to do your job outright! I proposed a bill that eliminated all of the above. He then advertised a lie to CP claiming that my bill allowed legislating from the bench, when in fact it prevented it.
It is as clear as day that the court - as with any monopoly - has absolutely no incentive to go out of its way to serve us better. So, I want to break up this monopoly in any way I can because with competition comes quality. In came NS Bank which allows private courts to be created.
I want to see the government recognize any private court that meets the basic minimum of quality which is the Supreme Court; if a private court provides a higher quality of service than the Supreme Court, then we and the government will be better off using that court. If the government chooses to not recognize any other ruling than its own, it will prevent itself and us from getting a quality court; THIS is intervention. [u]THIS[u/] is what the government cannot do according to Point 2 of Inherent Rights of Membership. And for those of you who understand economics, the government is imposing an opportunity cost on everyone by imposing its monopoly, which is hidden taxation and also illegal; now, I won't bother with the taxation claim because I know that intro-level economics seems to escape CapPro but it is what it is.
This is the positive side-effect of the bill, which has yet to be implemented.
NS Bank has picked up quite well in other regions though; and the issue of liquidity has been resolved actually so no worries there. Transactions are taking place. I will post economic data on the 1st of May. Inflation is yet to be seen despite the surge of productivity. I am quite optimistic.
Evulatar is the nation that operates NS++ now that Afforess is DoS. Try asking him about it either by TG or get on the IRC as he is always in the CP chat.
If it's two issues then I'll provide my opinions separately:
Your argument here is that the government already can buy, sell, own, or offer a service because of the exceptionalism of the judiciary. The judiciary is a government monopoly. So it's an exception to the general rule that the government cannot offer any service that may already be supplied by the private sector. Is that about right?
If that's true then you might want the constitution to explicitly define any exceptions including the Supreme Court and possibly other institutions. Alternately--and I think this is what you're getting at--you want the government to explicitly exclude the judiciary from its implied constitutional monopoly (providing judgements) and allow that function to be open to a private rival "Free Court" (or several private rival courts of equal authority).
Am I getting closer to describing what you're trying to do?
I've visited the NS Bank site and I can't really figure out what I'm supposed to do there. I see a lot of icons and numbers but it's not entirely clear what it will do for me and in return for what. When I click on the "court" there's just a one-nation region sitting there.
Not quite sure what it does.
Now before the Legislature, a Proposal sponsored by Cybernomix to establish 2 new seats of government, the text as follows:
This legislation is to add a new section in the Executive.
Under the Executive, add:
Minister of Corporate Affairs
This position is appointed by election:
- Responsible for founding state-owned Corporations
- Hiring a management team for each Corporation
- Raising capital for state-owned Corporations
Treasurer
This position is appointed by election:
- Collection of dividends from state-owned Corporations
- paying the wages or bonuses of government officials
- general management of government finances
Please telegram your vote of "Yea" or "Nay" to bothvote counters Mortem inferre and Crooked timber of humanity.
The poll is now open and will close Tuesday April 28 at 7:00 pm ET.
It is interesting we have a vote going on a piece of legislation that is patently illegal under the Capitalist Paradise constitution.
** VOTE AGAINST GOVERNMENT COMPETITION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR - VOTE NAY ON THE CYBERNOMIX LEGISLATION **
Yes.
No. I would rather the supreme court be one of many courts (the rest being private), that the government recognizes.
Yes, provided that these courts are pre-approved voluntarily by government.
Yes.
That's the market. You can send a message to whichever service provider you want. Those numbers are prices in GP-currency (the unit or u).
To have a sense of the currency's worth, you can compare prices. The going rate for a 20-Nation regional wfe advertisement seems to be 4000u. So, that's worth like 2u per stamp in comparison (you can't actually buy stamps tho, not allowed).
That's a startup. Work in progress. Pretty cool no?
You might want to register. It'll be pretty clear.
https://communities.cyclos.org/NSBank
It's a free market.
«12. . .915916917918919920921. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
