[WITHDRAWN] Capitalist Categorization Correction Act

[Deleted]

Capitalist Categorization Correction Act
Category: Charter Amendment
Author: Daophi

Chapter I: General Provisions

I – This Amendment may be cited as the “Capitalist Categorization Correction Act”

II – This Act shall come into force upon its passage.

Chapter II: Charter Amendment
1. Adds the bolded items to 1.2.1., the list of banned government types.

• Authoritarian Democracy
• Benevolent Dictatorship
• Capitalizt
• Capitalist Paradise
• Compulsory Consumerist State
• Conservative Democracy
• Corporate Bordello
• Corporate Police State
• Corrupt Dictatorship
• Father Knows Best State
• Free Market Paradise
• Iron Fist Consumerists
• Iron Fist Socialists
• Libertarian Police State
• Moralistic Democracy
• Mother Knows Best State
• Psychotic Dictatorship
• Right-wing Utopia
• Tyranny By Majority

[studentloandebt]

With this being the justification,

"Corporate Bordello" should be self explanatory as to why it's not appropriate for our region,

"Capitalizt" is a term Max Barry came up with for a society where corporations have as much power as the state,

and since we already ban "Free-Market Paradise", we probably ought to ban "Capitalist Paradise"

This seems like banning general classifications of your freedoms based on just names. Our concern for the past 8 years in this region has been if you have political and civil rights above 50, hard numbers, not what arbitrary classification name Max Berry gives you.

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2019 1:17:11 GMT studentloandebt said:

With this being the justification,

"Corporate Bordello" should be self explanatory as to why it's not appropriate for our region,

"Capitalizt" is a term Max Barry came up with for a society where corporations have as much power as the state,

and since we already ban "Free-Market Paradise", we probably ought to ban "Capitalist Paradise"

This seems like banning general classifications of your freedoms based on just names. Our concern for the past 8 years in this region has been if you have political and civil rights above 50, hard numbers, not what arbitrary classification name Max Berry gives you.

We should be consistent either way. Either we ought to add the categories that clearly don't follow regional principles to the already extensive list of banned categories, or we ought to stop considering government type a residency requirement.

[studentloandebt]

Jan 26, 2019 1:45:43 GMT @daophi said:

Jan 26, 2019 1:17:11 GMT studentloandebt said:

With this being the justification,

This seems like banning general classifications of your freedoms based on just names. Our concern for the past 8 years in this region has been if you have political and civil rights above 50, hard numbers, not what arbitrary classification name Max Berry gives you.

We should be consistent either way. Either we ought to add the categories that clearly don't follow regional principles to the already extensive list of banned categories, or we ought to stop considering government type a residency requirement.

Corporate Bordello, Capitalizt, and Capitalist Paradise do follow region principles, though. Our principles are democracy and equal rights. Those are the only requirements and principles that our regional Charter lays out. Economy isn't an issue since you can still be high in civil and political freedoms while having a libertarian economy. This only became an issue today with the conservative troll that moved in a few hours ago that happens to be Corporate Bordello

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2019 2:35:24 GMT studentloandebt said:

Jan 26, 2019 1:45:43 GMT @daophi said:

Corporate Bordello, Capitalizt, and Capitalist Paradise do follow region principles, though. Our principles are democracy and equal rights. Those are the only requirements and principles that our regional Charter lays out. Economy isn't an issue since you can still be high in civil and political freedoms while having a libertarian economy. This only became an issue today with the conservative troll that moved in a few hours ago that happens to be Corporate Bordello

it's kind of awkward to respond both in discord and here on the forum but I'll do it for our comrades who aren't on discord <3

the question is twofold:
1. ought we use government type as a residency requirement
2. what should be our criteria for selecting which government types meet requirements

I think, to answer the second question and assume we agree upon the first, that a right-libertarian government should be disqualifying from joining the region. The economic system of residents should include some modicum of social democracy.

[studentloandebt]

Jan 26, 2019 2:38:55 GMT @daophi said:

Jan 26, 2019 2:35:24 GMT studentloandebt said:

Corporate Bordello, Capitalizt, and Capitalist Paradise do follow region principles, though. Our principles are democracy and equal rights. Those are the only requirements and principles that our regional Charter lays out. Economy isn't an issue since you can still be high in civil and political freedoms while having a libertarian economy. This only became an issue today with the conservative troll that moved in a few hours ago that happens to be Corporate Bordello

it's kind of awkward to respond both in discord and here on the forum but I'll do it for our comrades who aren't on discord <3

the question is twofold:
1. ought we use government type as a residency requirement
2. what should be our criteria for selecting which government types meet requirements

I think, to answer the second question and assume we agree upon the first, that a right-libertarian government should be disqualifying from joining the region. The economic system of residents should include some modicum of social democracy.

---

My View on The Government Types

---

I do not think government type should be a residency requirement, and they haven't really at this point since all the banned categories are those that are below 50 in either civil rights or political freedoms. Also, the categories are not an accurate way to determine what a nation is since they can be leftist and yet be classified by Max Berry as Corporate Bordello. As discussed, Ratateague, one of this region's biggest influences, was a Corporate Bordello despite being a leftist nation. The categories are not a good basis for law.

---

My View On The Economic Factor

---

I do not believe that we need more restrictions of government types beyond that of political freedoms and civil rights. In our region's entire existence, from the moment of founding to up until now, we've valued democracy and equal rights. Economics has always been separate has not been an issue. With this inclusion of nations needing to "have some modicum of social democracy", I fear great difficulties and divisions that would result from this.
It is a lot easier for nations to slip up economically than politically or socially. One wrong click and you could end up looking like a corporate state. The amount of difficulties in attempting to regulate that would put a lot of strain on those who would need to look for those as well as for the nations that could slip up, putting everyone on eggshells with the issues and fear being more of a capitalist nation, which has not been an issue for this region since all have agreed on the importance of democracy and equal rights. This could then bring about distaste among our allies since major nations of some of our strongest allies have Corporate Bordellos and Anarchy nations in the DSA.

---

My View on The Bill's Unprincipled Nature and Inconsistencies

---

An issue I have with you requesting that "The economic system of residents should include some modicum of social democracy." is your inclusion of the NS category of Anarchy. Anarchy on NS is Anarcho-Capitalism, one of the most far right ideologies out there that is in no way social democratic in any sense of the word. However, as you stated on the Discord, you want to not ban it. Your main justification was essentially "because it's a meme". Regardless of how you see AnCaps, they are a far right ideology that is in no way social democratic. If you want to instill social democratic values onto our residents, you wouldn't do that by saying "Anarcho-Capitalism is social democratic enough". You may not believe that AnCaps are leftists, but for this bill to not include Anarchy is to give off that belief if the whole intention is to exclude the economic libertarians (with AnCaps being the most economic libertarian you can get).

You also stated that you are excluding Anarchy because it is "maximum freedom in all 3 categories" when most anarchists in this region can tell you that Anarcho-Capitalism is not freedom, but a society where corporations and monopolies have replaced all governments, whereas maximum freedom would be closer to Anarcho-Communism. You said that you don't want Capitalizt because "Capitalizt is a term Max Barry came up with for a society where corporations have as much power as the state,". However, if that is your justification for Capitalizt to be banned, then Anarcho-Capitalism should 100% be included in that, where government has fallen to corporations. Why would you ban nations where corporations control the government but not ban nations where corporations are the government?

After I pointed out that some prominent members of the region are Anarchy, like Cheeseworld, you began to also say that Anarchy should be excluded because of this. To me, this looks like favoritism, of not including one of the most rightist ideologies because someone you like made a shitpost nation (Cheeseworld acknowledges that their country is a meme, for those who don't know). This is cherry picking of not including those who would violate the purpose of this law because someone you like made it funny.

I already did not like this bill and thought political freedoms and civil rights were good enough for exclusion, but to not include AnCaps in your desire to ban rightists from the region would make this bill unprincipled and inconsistent. Laws should be principled, not allowing an ideology to stay when the bill seeks to ban all ideologies just like it. Laws should be consistent, not excluding those who happen to fall under the group the law seeks to ban, even if they are people you like. Memes do not belong codified in our Charter. Favoritism does not belong codified in our Charter. Unless you desire to exclude all rightists from the region in order to make sure all the residents are considered social democratic, then you're not trying to instill social democratic values into the residents, just excluding rightists you don't find funny. Your sense of humor should not be the basis of Charter Law.

---

---

I strongly oppose this bill in the aspects of excluding certain government classifications that are based on Max Berry's Descriptions of Politics, as well as the difficulties and divisions than can arise from installing economic restrictions, as well as being unprincipled and inconsistent.

[Deleted]

after sleeping on it, I think that Dank's position is the right one. Act retracted <3

[Administrator Account]

I made my opinion known on Discord, but I will once again post it here:

I think that because nation categories are subjective and named from a liberal perspective, and thus the names of the categories are irrelevant. My point of argument on Discord was that nation categories are not banned for their names, but rather the fact to achieve the category name means that the nation will have insufficient political freedoms and/or civil rights. Adding these three would be a significant break of precedent and a misuse of the banned nations function by excluding nations that would be otherwise meet the necessary political freedoms and civil rights levels required of DSA nations. I believe that the author's first question "Ought we use government type as a residency requirement" is understandably misplaced. It is my opinion that the answer to this is not yes for all of us, and in fact, it should not be. I will reiterate my point: Government types are banned because of the base function underneath them. Comrades who believe in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, of which we have some, could potentially fall under "Tyranny of the Majority" because this majority is not well defined. It is an issue of semantics, and because these categories and ineherently subjective, it would be wrong to ban more on the basis of names.

My second issue is with the author's call for a modicum of social democracy. Again, this is a subjective question which will never be agreed upon. If we subject nations to having a certain level of economic freedom, then we must apply these standards across the board of requirements. I firmly believe it would be hypocritical for us to impose certain ideals on the economic functions of a nation when we do not already enforce certain political and civil freedoms. I would argue that if a country should be asked to have a level of restrictions on economic entities within their borders, then we must also ban all nations without the policies that explicitly allow for public protest, marriage equality, AI personhood, affirmative action, etc. The fact is though, the existence of these is subjective to the game and are a matter of chance after the creation of a nation. My point here is that enforcing a specific minimal economic policy is subjective, random, and will lead to a slippery slope that can be used as justification for forcing nations to make explicit decisions in game.

[Administrator Account]

The author has withdrawn this act from consideration and this thread is now locked.