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: Power to the states
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
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: November 2087
Description[?]:
| The national government should only regulate in areas of its own competence, including but not limited to defence and finance. Such things as food and sports can be better handled by a level of government closer to the people. Ultimately these powers shoulod be devolved to the city, village or rural municipality level, but as a first step they will be handled by state governments. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The funding of sports clubs.
Old value:: The government does not fund sports clubs; only private ones are allowed.
Current: Local governments decide the funding policy of sports clubs.
Proposed: Local governments decide the funding policy of sports clubs.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:27:48, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | ((OOC No. Too many different issues in one bill. I could support for example, the sports club issue, but I oppose that adoption one. So how am I supposed to vote?)) |
| Date | 17:46:18, July 27, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | Supported, but make sure you put a clause in there that ensures that local governments cannot break the terms of the Non-Discriminatory Adoptions act ( http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=8560 ). |
| Date | 17:58:20, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | It is our considered opinion that the thinking expressed in the bill description has some serious defects. While we could agree that the role of the central government is limited, we do not agree with the areas selected. It does have a role in economics and defence, it also has a role in defending the rights of the individual citizen. It does not have a role in the environment in a country on the scale of ours. This is far better devolved to the states to handle as was originally proposed in the Natinal Parks bill. If the Green Advantage party see fit to drop the two clauses that relate to the defense of the citizen, and include a local national parks policy then we could support this. As it stands we can not. Food safety has to be universal across our nation as do the conditions of adoption. If they are not you are suggesting that children from one state should not be adopted by potential parents from another. and that food produced in one state can not be shipped, processed or consumed in another state. These restrictions go down the path of causing ruptures and divisions and ethnic conflict in our nation, and as such are unacceptable. Sports clubs can be a matter of local government choice. |
| Date | 21:18:31, July 27, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | Fully Opposed... I worked too hard to get sports clubs privatized, they are profitable enough to stand on their own without local or central government interference... |
| Date | 00:41:59, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | for the sake of seeking consensus, the adoption article is out, and the bill description has environment removed. Green Advantage believes the environment is a national government responsibilty, but no requirement for other parties to agree to that in the bill. TIC since you are adamant on the sports clubs i can't seek consensus with you this time so have to seek it only with others. We need to get some food standards in place. Right now there are none, isn't this at least an improvement? We could always try again on the food standards later, I'm willing to consider making food standards national. |
| Date | 01:27:27, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | We do have food standards in that sell by dates have to be included on all food stuffs etc. There is a problem in that the options available on the food safety bill are ridiculous. |
| Date | 02:50:26, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | "TIC since you are adamant on the sports clubs i can't seek consensus with you this time so have to seek it only with others. " Sorry. Sports clubs were just part of it. We agree with the ASP's last post about the other article. The current food regulations are more than enough, and we are content to leave them as they are. |
| Date | 16:33:10, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | ASP: you are pretty adamant on the literal interpretation of proposals, it seems. The current value on food is "no standards." Wouldn't you agree that this has to be changed? If all the options are bad, then dont we have to choose the least bad one? |
| Date | 16:45:35, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | Not necessarily. No standards can be better than unnecessary restrictions. Remember we are a small government party, with the intention of allowing the market to determine most things. If a company does not keep its standards up then it will go out of business without any interference from us as a government. Placing regulations and restrictions may force perfectly good companies out of business due to the costs of the inspection, but still not protect the customer as there are always loopholes and corruption wherever you have inspection and legal requirements. |
| Date | 16:49:45, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | The only option that would be acceptable is the one that recommends standards but does not enforce them, but then what is the point in spending public money on creating advisory standards. Let the industry organisation do so itself, after all they know a damn sight more about food and food safety than we do. Self regulation is the option we would like to see for most industries. It works with the most sensitive of all - Health, so why not use it elsewhere. |
| Date | 03:15:06, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | ah, i understand. OK, removing the food article, but it may be re-introduced along with adoption later. I take the point about omnibus bills. |
| Date | 03:16:34, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | forgot to change the bill description before hitting the vote link. Please read it as exclusing the word "food". |
| Date | 03:20:31, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | We do not mind if the local government in some area wishes, with the consent of the people, to support a sports team. |
| Date | 03:39:00, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | If the people wish to support a sports team, they are free to support a private one, at their own expense. They should not be free to support any sports team using any money obtained from others, by force, who may or may not wish to do the same. |
| Date | 05:16:08, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | Let us turn this a little on its head TiC. Thinking outside the box a moment. There is a city which has a sports team. The owner wants to sell the team and the only prospective buyers would relocate this team to another city. This would mean that the city would lose not only a sports franchise, but also the stadium which is used for many other events. Now the team is profitable, but only marginally. The stadium also makes a small profit each year. Why should the city council not buy the team as an investment, taking the profit to invest in the city? The team is not being supported involuntarily, the team is involuntarily supporting the city. |
| Date | 05:32:26, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | ... Interesting way to look at it... It certainly falls under the "It is preferred though that the government uses its resources to generate an income for itself." principle you have brought up, which I agree with btw. ... For the sake of being consistent, I will keep my vote where it is right now. If it seems that the bill would fail, I will reconsider where I put it. ((There are also other sources of conflict for me, if a private sports team is forced to compete against a public one, this is inherently unfair, as the private one has no ability to recover from losses using tax dollars. |
| Date | 05:39:06, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | The use of tax dollars to recover losses would have to be prevented in law. (I assume you mean compete financially, not on the field of play). ie, a team may be publically owned, but must be self supporting financially. If the Yankees were to be bought by NYC they would have to cut their payroll by a large percentage and start turning a small profit. You could of course as the owner ask for voluntary contributions from fans if you needed a cash iunjection. Just out of curiosity, who does own the Green Bay Packers. Is it the city of Green Bay, or is it the fans? |
| Date | 06:57:11, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | "The use of tax dollars to recover losses would have to be prevented in law. (I assume you mean compete financially, not on the field of play)." Yes of course. However, the financial competition(in a way) is directly intertwined with the other competition. It may be tricky to separate these. "A team may be publically owned, but must be self supporting financially." It would also be accountable to the government, as the "owner". "You could of course as the owner ask for voluntary contributions from fans if you needed a cash iunjection." Sell more tickets? If a team satisfies fans, they will support it financially by attending games and buying stuff. "Just out of curiosity, who does own the Green Bay Packers. Is it the city of Green Bay, or is it the fans?" Erm. I dont know. I can check... I would support a bill to allow public purchase of a sports team, provided: That the team must generate a reasonable profit, so as not to be a public burden That the team is managed by people who know what they are doing, (not bureacrats, they would be accountable to the owners, however). That no private parties submit acceptable bids to buy the team. |
| Date | 16:28:17, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Power to the states |
| Message | Those sound like reasonable conditions. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 259 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 75 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 116 |
| Random fact: http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com and http://www.behindthename.com/random are great resources for coming up with character names from unfamiliar cultures. |
| Random quote: "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." - Niccolo Machiavelli |