Better Business Act

[lashrash]

Better Business Act (BBA)

• Prior to a business opening, it must have registered with the Luthorian government. Any business may be denied the right to function by the Minister of Finance, Minister of State, or Parliament.

• If a business is denied the right to function, for any reason, an appeal may be made to the Monarch. If the Monarch approves of the removal of function it is final. If a disagreement is found a Royal Decree must be issued, providing no prior order has been made, to overturn the decision. If an order has been made then the enactment of Subsido velitatio will be required.

• Business may remove, mine, or harvest the natural resources of property that they own only. If a third party grants the removal, mining, or harvesting, the business must obtain written authorization before the work can commence.

• If a business is found to have removed, mined, or harvested the resources of a property without written authorization or ownership, they will be fined 1,000 Marks per offense, plus the cost of replacement where applicable, and all materials will be returned to the owner.

• Multiple violations may result in the suspension or dissolution of the violating business, and the owners and all those involved may be subject to further criminal prosecution.

This is now open for discussion

[akoni]

I like this act and think we should move forward with it as soon as possible.

[lashrash]

After another 24 hours, a motion to vote, and second, I will take it to vote.

[lashrash]

This will still need to be discussed more, so that it may receive a motion and a second. Akoni, now Owen Blake, is no longer a member of parliament, so his motion is invalid at this time.

Lets get to work!

[Kilikopela]

I do not like the proposal. It denies a business the right to operate simply because the government does not like it. I don't think that it is fair.

Thank You and Humbly,

[lashrash]

The only reasons that it would be denied would be if the business goes against public authority, harasses the public. Such as adult video entertainment, terrorist lobbyist groups, or any other business that would interfere with or violate a treaty.

This is also a way to keep businesses in line. Should one of them break the law, then they pay the money and go, to most business owners its a slap on the wrist, but to sanction, or interupt the cash flow, that tends to get their minds focused.

We are not looking to control, only keep businesses, as well as citizens in the scope of the law.

[Brian O'Gara]

Terrorist lobbyists are one thing, but should we make the adult video industry illegal just because we find it distateful? Is it the government's right to enforce those kinds of arbitrary restrictions on business?

[Elikapeka]

"Harassing the public" does need to be more defined, otherwise objections to a business could be purely the opinion.

[lashrash]

Apr 9, 2008 11:29:00 GMT -5 Brian O'Gara said:

Terrorist lobbyists are one thing, but should we make the adult video industry illegal just because we find it distasteful? Is it the government's right to enforce those kinds of arbitrary restrictions on business?

I am not a voting member, unless there is a tie, but in my opinon, that particular business, will not be allowed. I would not approve of it.

Just being honest.

[lashrash]

Apr 10, 2008 18:47:54 GMT -5 Elikapeka said:

"Harassing the public" does need to be more defined, otherwise objections to a business could be purely the opinion.

Telemarketing, spamming, spamming PM boxes. This applies to businesses that choose to harass people. via the options above, and businesses that would do it as a part of normal operation.

[Kilikopela]

I think that if it were added to the the language of the bill then it would have a better chance of passing.

Thank You and Humbly,

[lashrash]

I don't see that happening.

We can define harassing, but not the actions that are taken. If we do it your way, they just look for a loophole, but it is still just as annoying and solves nothing. It is just easier to define harassment, and when any action has reached that point, make it publicly known and warn them.

If they continue, take he legal action.

[Kilikopela]

If you were to add specifics to the legislation I might reconsider my position. I don't want to vote for something that is vague.

Thank You and Humbly,

[lashrash]

Dec 18, 2007 14:24:56 GMT -5 @lashrash said:

Better Business Act (BBA)

• Prior to a business opening, it must have registered with the Luthorian government. Any business may be denied the right to function by the Minister of Finance, Minister of State, or Parliament.

• If a business is denied the right to function, for any reason, an appeal may be made to the Monarch. If the Monarch approves of the removal of function it is final. If a disagreement is found a Royal Decree must be issued, providing no prior order has been made, to overturn the decision. If an order has been made then the enactment of Subsido velitatio will be required.

• Business may remove, mine, or harvest the natural resources of property that they own only. If a third party grants the removal, mining, or harvesting, the business must obtain written authorization before the work can commence.

• If a business is found to have removed, mined, or harvested the resources of a property without written authorization or ownership, they will be fined 1,000 Marks per offense, plus the cost of replacement where applicable, and all materials will be returned to the owner.

• Multiple violations may result in the suspension or dissolution of the violating business, and the owners and all those involved may be subject to further criminal prosecution.

This is now open for discussion

This is what we are working on now. Discussing the above. Please redraw it if you want it expanded. I have outlined it to the best of my abilities.

[Kilikopela]

I think that the business should be able to appeal to the Courts. The business owner should be able to make their case and the Monarch, MOS, and Minister of Finance will also be able to explain why the application was denied. If that was added to the legislation then I would support it. I move to add an amendment. "The final appeal shall be to the Supreme Court. The business owner shall be able to make their case as well as the Moarch, Minister of State, and the Minister of Finance should also give reasons as to why the application was rejected. There shall be no final appeals after the Supreme Court has ruled."

Thank You and Humbly,

[lashrash]

Apr 14, 2008 20:42:31 GMT -5 Kilikopela said:

I think that the business should be able to appeal to the Courts. The business owner should be able to make their case and the Monarch, MOS, and Minister of Finance will also be able to explain why the application was denied. If that was added to the legislation then I would support it. I move to add an amendment. "The final appeal shall be to the Supreme Court. The business owner shall be able to make their case as well as the Moarch, Minister of State, and the Minister of Finance should also give reasons as to why the application was rejected. There shall be no final appeals after the Supreme Court has ruled."

Thank You and Humbly,

I do have an issue with it going to the courts. This is not a matter of legality, it is registration with the government. I can see the court having a say so should they break the law, but not before.

[Kilikopela]

No offense to the King, but I do not think that an unelected or unappointed person should be the last person to decide on something. I completely agree with the Monarch being part of the process but not the last step. That is why I added the Supreme Court amendment. It actually is a matter of legality. Should the business owner think what the government is doing is wrong then he should have his day in court. The most patriotic thing a person can do is sue someone.

[lashrash]

I disagree.

Encouraging people to sue, is ridiculous.

We can compromise, and set guidelines for the rejection of the business, but I will not endorse giving this to the courts. I can also assure you that I will personally speak with the king and see to its dismissal after voting, if that is the way it goes.

The courts have other duties, and it is not to be involved in non legal matters. You handle the sentencing when the law is broken, nothing more.

[Kilikopela]

I think that the courts are to act as a counter balance between the Monarchy and the Grand Parliament. I think that this amendment is a reasonable application to this legislation. I motion for a vote with the current amendment.

Thank You and Humbly,

[lashrash]

Just for clarification, you are motioning to vote on the origional version? Or on your version?

I will recognize the motion to vote on the origional, however I invoke my right to delay a vote, if you are trying to vote on your version.

My reason for the delay is that there has been no progress made. We have both thrown our opinions out there but no consideration has been made, no final solution has been made either, also no other delegate has interjected.