GA Resolution: The Technology Investment Act

Which covers anything from a nuclear bomb to a christmas toy.

Okay so far...

I'm not worried about this...

Just because I can't afford an iPad doesn't mean I can't afford my groceries.

Like nuclear reactors, iPhones, space ships, telecommunications satellites, guns... Insane.

Even more nonsense. Intellectual property is typically held by individuals and filed as patents. This firstly violates the General Patent Charter by forcing people to share their technological advances, but it strips corporations of their trade secrets. Nations typically only hold a very few patents, and I am not raping my private businesses because some do-gooder things everyone should have a cell phone, whether they can afford it or not.

AKA violate my national security.

Which can be done by private banks. Waste of funds.

Another violation of national security.

Er.... what? The nonsense continues.

Micromanagement of private corporations...

Costumers eh? I really think this sums up this rats nest. It's abject crap.

This proposal was discussed very thoroughly on the NS forums, and even though the author was told again and again it was complete twaddle he elected to submit it anyway.
It failed to reach quorum.
So he submitted it again and with a bit of dilligent TGing he managed to get this tripe on to the floor.

This violates national security, the intellectural property of corporations and private individuals, and attempts to artificially evolve nations before their due time.

In a real world parallel, this would be the same as the UN mandating that every private individual and corporation in the world hand their blueprints, production techniques, and devices to a third world country.
And then ask the nations of the world to pay for it because the third world country can't afford to build the factories.

This is actually breathtaking.

Sorry to ramble on so long but this one gets my goat.
Oh.

and yeah, against.

I recommend an Against. It is poorly written and appears to de facto ban past tech roleplay.

I'm against this resolution, completely against. It violates way too many rights of private corporations and individuals current IP and national security (as cerb so nicely pointed out above).



Increases in technology is one of the major driving forces in economic growth in the long run. The existence of IP laws is credited with significant contributions toward economic growth. Having IP provides financal incentive and is very effective at driving all "technology" forward (which is essential for long run economic growth and increasing productivity and addressing the increasing demand for increased productivity in the future). If we all shared intellectual property willey nilly to anyone, then no one would want to develop the technology since it would just be shared to all your competitors and you are left paying the R&D costs while your competitors take free advantage of your hard work.


The proposed solution of the Technological Freedom and Development Committee paying for corporations or individuals to "upgrade, buy, or develop technology" via loans is a joke, since the resolution mandates technology is shared willey nilly, anyone can ask for a loan for developing technology, but why would they want to start the R&D if you have to pay back that loan and have to share the technology advances? The corporation/individual must face repayment of the loan while their competitors take advantage of the benifits of the advances for free, so no corporation or individual would want to undertake this loan as it puts you in a worse condition compared to your competitors.

Plenty of governments already give grants for the development of technology, and it should be the governments choice to prioritise its expenditure in its nations interest. For this resolution where does the Technological Freedom and Development Committee get it's funding to provide grants?


In my opinion: an utter waste of resources.


The lenders should negotiate with the entity seeking the loan, without need of a Technological Freedom and Development Committee.


Even if it said customers, how does one define if "technology" is sufficient in serving citizens, officials, workers, customers, etc.? There are no generally recognised criteria in the proposal for sufficiently serving citizens, officials, workers, costumers, etc. Also what about improving "technology" to get the benefits of more improved technology - when you already serve citizens, officials, workers, customers, etc sufficiently? Under this resolution no such loans would be given. So technology plays the solution to problems only after the technology is needed to sufficiently serve citizens, officials, workers, costumers, etc.? That's stupid, you want to always be sufficiently serving citizens, officials, workers, costumers, etc., but to do so you need to have more technology developed while sufficiently serving citizens, officials, workers, costumers, etc., something this resolution seems to block.

I believe this would make the development of future "technology" more inefficient than by current methods, and therefore voted against.

Glad to see 10ki will be coming down against this piece of trash.

AGAINST this resolution.