Stellonia v. RTL Bank

[Culture of Life]

JUSTICE COURT OF RIGHT TO LIFE
Stellonia v. RTL Bank
Decided August 2, 2017

---

THE FEDERATED STATES OF STELLONIA,
Co-plaintiff, representing himself,

THE TIFFANY-TWISTED HOTEL OF UNITED MASSACHUSETTS,
Co-plaintiff, representing himself,

v.

BANK OF RIGHT TO LIFE,
Defendant, represented by Aawia, Director of the Bank of Right to Life.

---

RTL Code 9:18c imposes a ₤75 corporate registration fee, ostensibly to raise revenue for the regional government. Stellonia and United Massachusetts challenged the fee in court, contending that it violated their freedom of association under the region's bill of rights (RTL Code 2:1d). Representing the Bank of Right to Life, Aawia argued that freedom of association did not extend to corporations and, even if it did, that the registration fee was reasonable and affordable to citizens. The Justice Court ruled in favor of the Bank and upheld RTL Code 9:18c as a legitimate exercise of the Senate's legislative power.

---

NEW DOLGARIA, JP, delivered the opinion of the Justice Court.

This was a very difficult case to consider. There are two issues in play here:

1. Whether the ability to form a corporation is a right guaranteed to citizens;
2. Whether the fee of ₤75 is so high that it obstructs citizens from engaging in that right.

Issue 2 is simpler, so I will address it first. United Massachusetts argues that the burden of proof lies on the Bank to demonstrate that the ₤75 fee is "necessary for the security of the bank." However, this argument relies on the assumption that the freedom to establish a corporation is a fundamental right protected by the Bill of Rights. That question will be answered in the second part of my decision, so even though Bank Director Aawia has indeed attempted to demonstrate the necessity of the fee, let us disregard UM's point for now.

As Stellonia notes, ₤75 is 75% of the stipend given to players who have become citizens and have made at least five posts on the forums (RTL Code 9:6). United Massachusetts argues that only high-ranking citizens are paid by the government, and therefore lower-profile citizens have a harder time acquiring funds. Aawia points out, however, that in the current state of the economy, the stipend of ₤100 is rarely depleted quickly and is more than enough to pay the fee and leave some spending cash leftover. Aawia adds that there are payable positions open to all citizens, including serving in the military or writing an article for the newspaper. Citizens wishing to establish a corporation can also ease the burden of the ₤75 fee by sharing the fee between themselves - after all, corporations by definition are meant to include more than one member. Admittedly, the regional economy is small and still growing, but as Aawia explains, if we take it that citizens having few funds to engage in the economy is a violation of their rights, then the government must be obligated to ensure that all citizens have plenty of money in their bank accounts, regardless of whether they're exchanging goods or services. This is impractical, it would drain the bank quickly, and it kind of ruins the point of having an economy in the first place. Aawia sums it up nicely here:

"The plaintiffs... fail to mention how lack of income puts responsibility on us [the bank] to lower prices, rather than on the individual to be creative to make money through offering goods or services."

In conclusion, assuming that establishing a corporation is a right, the ₤75 fee does not obstruct that right.

Now, let us tackle that more difficult question - is establishing a corporation a guaranteed right in the first place? Stellonia defines a corporation as "an association of individuals generally formed for the purpose of conducting business." I find nothing wrong with this definition. Stellonia then argues that since RTL Code 2:1d states "freedom of association" to be a "fundamental right," the freedom to form corporations must be recognized as a right. He fails, however, to demonstrate that RTL Code 2:1d guarantees freedom for all forms of association. In other words, citizens are free to associate, but RTL Code 2:1d does not necessarily guarantee the right (meaning without cost) to associate specifically in the form of a corporation. If the government refused to recognize corporations altogether, then RTL Code 2:2 might very well have been violated, as United Massachusetts demonstrates. But the freedom to form a corporation is more of a privilege than a fundamental right, as Aawia notes. The question of whether the ₤75 fee obstructs the supposed right to form a corporation, discussed earlier, has now become irrelevant.

Therefore, having reached a conclusion on both issues, the Court rules in favor of the Bank of Right to Life.