Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 01:04:08
Server time: 14:55:51, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): Archangel_1 | Caoimhean | SE33 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: Firearms Act II

Details

Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party

Status[?]: passed

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: May 2365

Description[?]:

A bill to increase the freedom of the individual to defend himself and his property, and to add another check and balance to expansion of gov't power.

The Government of Hobrazia hereby establishes the Federal Firearms Agency, that will regulate the ownership of firearms to only those without a criminal record, or history of mental illness, as well as provide for mandatory classes that teach basic firearms safety.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date14:14:25, February 24, 2007 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
MessageWE ARE NOT A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

Date16:30:37, February 24, 2007 CET
FromCapitalizt Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
MessageAnd?

Date16:58:35, February 24, 2007 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
MessageThe bill establishes a Federal Firearms Agency. We're not a Federal Government so why would we have a Federal Firearms Agency?

Date18:20:52, February 24, 2007 CET
From Liberal Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
MessageI do not see how we are not. We do have counties with local governments you know.

Even if we aren't we ought to be.

Date23:04:35, February 24, 2007 CET
FromNational Imperial Hobrazian Front
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
Message"I do not see how we are not." I don't see how we are. There is nothing in our laws that promotes federalism.

Regardless, support.

Date23:11:48, February 24, 2007 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
MessageWe're not because the Counties do not set laws and do not operate autonomously from the Government.
Federalism is a failed way of operating a disperate and incoherent Country with confusing laws and multilayered expensive government.

Date23:28:02, February 24, 2007 CET
From Liberal Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
Message"We're not because the Counties do not set laws and do not operate autonomously from the Government."

Under our leadership they will be able to.

Federalism is far cheaper as it brings politics closer to the individual.

Date23:29:59, February 24, 2007 CET
FromNational Imperial Hobrazian Front
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
Message"Federalism is far cheaper as it brings politics closer to the individual." Wrong. Federalism is far more expensive, as there are two systems of beurocracy instead of one. How is it cheaper?

Date23:34:19, February 24, 2007 CET
From Liberal Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
Message"Wrong. Federalism is far more expensive, as there are two systems of beurocracy instead of one. How is it cheaper?"

You act as if both levels of gov't do the same thing, but they don't. As long as jurisdiction is respected things are fine.

Local gov'ts are much easier to influence as a single individual, since there is a much smaller population involved, therefore more pressure on them to be more frugal.

Date23:51:48, February 24, 2007 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
MessageNo, federalism is more expensive because not only do you have both local and national government operating similar, if not the same, duties but you also have many local systems in each locale doing the same job as each other rather than a single unified system operating. Why do you believe standard corperate practice in business is to centralise operations? It's because it's cheaper.

Date23:54:54, February 24, 2007 CET
From Liberal Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
MessageDid you read what I said previously? You just repeated what I said was not the case.

You see there is a word called "jurisdiction." The federal gov't will do one thing, while local governments are tasked with something else completely. It is not at all hard to understand.

Date00:07:48, February 25, 2007 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
MessageBecause what you said doesn't happen in government. There is always a crossover of duties, whether you want one or not.
There is also the point that local governments are many and each local government needs to operate the same systems as each other increasing the numbers of people and time needed to operate any such system and so increasing costs.
We repeat, learn from business, especially as you seem to believe that private corporations can operate most areas better than government. They centralise to reduce costs, so what are the odds that localising to many disperate sectors would reduce costs?

Date00:29:17, February 25, 2007 CET
From Liberal Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
Message"Because what you said doesn't happen in government. There is always a crossover of duties, whether you want one or not."

We would love to see some evidence of this.

If that were really the case that would be a sign of a dysfunctional federation, which is certainly not what we propose.

"There is also the point that local governments are many and each local government needs to operate the same systems as each other increasing the numbers of people and time needed to operate any such system and so increasing costs."

Why must they all operate the same? We take issue with that very premise.

"We repeat, learn from business, especially as you seem to believe that private corporations can operate most areas better than government. They centralise to reduce costs, so what are the odds that localising to many disperate sectors would reduce costs?"

Corporations also like having small independent business in operation, because it gives them a chance to fry much bigger fish, without having to worry about being responsible for every little thing. This is something you learn in any basic economics class.

Date00:46:26, February 25, 2007 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
Message"We would love to see some evidence of this."
Difficult considering we do not run a federation and we are quite sure that the other countries on Terra would be unwilling to supply us with such important information of the way their governments work.

"Why must they all operate the same? We take issue with that very premise."
They have to do the same work as each other. Each County, on a large scale, or local government has to have a local police force. They have to have gun laws, they have to have economic ministers, they have to have civil services. In so doing they all have to have employees doing the same job as someone else in another County. It may not be operated identically, but they have to have someone doing the same work as someone in the other Counties. In doing so they have "copycat" agencies doing the same work in each region rather than one national group.

"Corporations also like having small independent business in operation, because it gives them a chance to fry much bigger fish, without having to worry about being responsible for every little thing. This is something you learn in any basic economics class."
But they are responsible for every little thing.
The motor industry is very big on having multiple companies under a single banner, each one operating semi-independently, but as soon as one section has problems, or even more importantly the parent company, you see cost cutting in all areas and in all businesses, whether they are 'independent' or not. There is no such thing as a truly independent business within a corporation, they all end up reporting centrally.

Date01:18:31, February 25, 2007 CET
From Liberal Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
Message"Difficult considering we do not run a federation and we are quite sure that the other countries on Terra would be unwilling to supply us with such important information of the way their governments work."

Then you cannot say that there is a cross over of duties.

"They have to do the same work as each other. Each County, on a large scale, or local government has to have a local police force. They have to have gun laws, they have to have economic ministers, they have to have civil services. In so doing they all have to have employees doing the same job as someone else in another County. It may not be operated identically, but they have to have someone doing the same work as someone in the other Counties. In doing so they have "copycat" agencies doing the same work in each region rather than one national group."

Which doesn't matter one iota since each agency would be much smaller than it would be for the entire nation. In fact we would argue that, if managed properly, overal gov't size would be about the same if not smaller than a central gov't that does everything.

"But they are responsible for every little thing.
The motor industry is very big on having multiple companies under a single banner, each one operating semi-independently, but as soon as one section has problems, or even more importantly the parent company, you see cost cutting in all areas and in all businesses, whether they are 'independent' or not. There is no such thing as a truly independent business within a corporation, they all end up reporting centrally."
That's if you accept the notion that all businesses have a parent company, which we take issue with yet again.

Date01:23:56, February 25, 2007 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Firearms Act II
Message"Which doesn't matter one iota since each agency would be much smaller than it would be for the entire nation."

Each agency would be smaller on their own, but added together would be larger than the single agency operated by a single national government. In that way they are larger and more expensive.

"In fact we would argue that, if managed properly, overal gov't size would be about the same"

If they're the same then there is no point in localising.

"That's if you accept the notion that all businesses have a parent company, which we take issue with yet again."

They either have a parent company or they are the parent company. There is nothing to take issue with.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 304

no
 

Total Seats: 73

abstain
  

Total Seats: 23


Random fact: Particracy is completely free! If you want to support the game financially, feel free to make a small donation to the lievenswouter@gmail.com Paypal account.

Random quote: "Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood." - Augusto Pinochet

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 72