Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: March 5461
Next month in: 03:34:46
Server time: 00:25:13, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): BMsellar | friedrich3 | 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: Freedom of the Outdoors

Details

Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming

Status[?]: defeated

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: October 2091

Description[?]:

Recognizing that we live in an environmentally skeptical nation, we hereby withdraw the government from interference in outdoor recreation, as well as removing government legislation that prevents the people from utilizing certain areas of land as they see fit.

Numerous polls have been conducted on these issues in the past, and we now grant the will of the people, that they be allowed to use their time and property as they see fit--And not be forced to pay for parks and regulations that they simply do not want.

No part of this bill shall be construed to restrict the ability of Lodamun Citizens to set up parks on property that they are the rightful owners of. This bill shall not be interpreted to place any limits upon private usage of private property.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date02:45:49, July 29, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessageOk We can support this. :-)

Date02:47:39, July 29, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
Message((Picky...
jk ))

Date03:34:17, July 29, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
Messageyou really want to make parks illegal??

Date03:54:31, July 29, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessageThe Lodamunian(? correct me if Im wrong about this word) people recently revealed that they do not want any of their land or money being used in such a way.
http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewnews.php?newsid=3626

We see no valid reason why the government should fund or designate parks, when only 20% of the population supports this, or why we should allow local governments to do so, when only an additional 18%(about the same number as one of our smaller regions) of the population supports that option.
10% of our citizens only object to spending tax dollars on parks, but an additional 52% percent of our citizens either do not want any form of parks, or want them outright banned.

Please justify how spending the forcibly obtained tax dollars of our citizens can be justified when they have clearly told us that they do not want us to do so(with regard to parks).
Can you justify placing more value on trees than people?

Date03:58:43, July 29, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
Messagemaybe, but that's not the question.

if people set up a park, all by themselves, on private property, this proposal would make their action illegal. I understand you don't want to spend money on parks (evil despoiler!) but why do you want to make non-funded parks illegal? It's not very libertarian of you.

Date04:18:08, July 29, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessageFrom the proposals:
"Proposed: The government outlaws designation of property for public parks."

I believe what you describe would be considered a "private park". Where the owners could charge for admission, or allow it to be open and free. Let environmentalists, boy scouts((I happen to be an Eagle Scout, so Im not just BS-ing here)), etc. set up private parks if they wish. But outlaw all sectors of government from designating or funding "public" parks.

"but why do you want to make non-funded parks illegal? It's not very libertarian of you."
I dont want to. If people wish to fund their own land to be used as a park(or to do so at a profit), they are free to do so. However, they are not free to use the land of others for this(unless they buy it(voluntarily, no eminent domain), of course).
It is libertarian, because I aim to reduce the role of government where it does not belong. This party maintains that the only valid areas for government involvement are those that involve defending the citizens from the initiation of force or fraud by others.
(We would support government involvement if a private park was trespassed upon and despoiled without permission, btw, as that would be infringing upon the rights of the owner)

Riina Veila
TiC Science, Technology, and Agriculture Representative

Date17:06:29, July 29, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessageSorry, but the proposal simply does not say what you mean.

Date17:40:36, July 29, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessagePlease clarify that last statement.

We propose to outlaw government involvement in "PUBLIC" parks.
You speak of private parks, which this does not even address.

Date00:01:46, July 30, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessageThere is a confusion here between the two of you as to the referent of the term public in public parks. One, TiC is taking this to mean state owned. The other, GA is taking this to mean open to the general public. The proposal can be interpreted either way, and it would have been advisable to ammend the description to make it clear that public here means state owned. If a private land owenr wishes to open their land to the general public, this bill does not prevent that.

Date01:56:24, July 30, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessageShould have changed the first sentence as well, since Lodamun is NOT a skeptic nation today.

Date05:17:21, July 30, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
Messageif this passes, could the foreign minister please inform Kalistan and Gaduridos that we are breaking our treaty commitment to preserve the coral reefs (see East Coast Marine Preservation Area bill as passed).

Date10:51:51, July 30, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessageASP:"There is a confusion here between the two of you as to the referent of the term public in public parks. One, TiC is taking this to mean state owned. The other, GA is taking this to mean open to the general public. The proposal can be interpreted either way, and it would have been advisable to ammend the description to make it clear that public here means state owned. If a private land owenr wishes to open their land to the general public, this bill does not prevent that."
TiC sees the term "public parks" to mean government owned, and/or tax funded.
Portions of the bill that are clear that parks, privately owned but open to the public, are completely allowed.
"We hereby withdraw...government legislation that prevents the people from utilizing certain areas of land as they see fit...

...we now grant the will of the people, that they be allowed to use their time and property as they see fit--And not be forced to pay for parks and regulations that they simply do not want.

No part of this bill shall be construed to restrict the ability of Lodamun Citizens to set up parks on property that they are the rightful owners of. This bill shall not be interpreted to place any limits upon private usage of private property."
In any case, a judicial application of this bill, when reviewing our intent in passing it, will certainly take into account the discussion as well as the bill description.

"Should have changed the first sentence as well, since Lodamun is NOT a skeptic nation today."
You are correct. Last time I checked it was 205.24/400 Environmentalist. We see that as moderate, eco-regulation leaning.

"if this passes, could the foreign minister please inform Kalistan and Gaduridos that we are breaking our treaty commitment to preserve the coral reefs (see East Coast Marine Preservation Area bill as passed)."
We withdraw from that treaty. Simple as that. The treaty is over 36 years old, and has no set deadline. Therefore we have the right to withdraw after a reasonable period of time. Also, no proposal values were included in that bill.

Date20:37:04, July 30, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessageWe may, by an act of parliament withdraw from a treaty. However if you read this bill carefully you will see that this is not incompatible with the treaty. Coral reefs and marine territory are not property. This law simply prevents the use of government land for public parks. It says nothing whatsoever about protected marine zones.

Date00:20:19, August 06, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
Messagejust waiting for the pendulum to swing back to skeptic were you? Still no, of course.

Date07:54:47, August 06, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Freedom of the Outdoors
MessageNot really...I dont change my "platform" due to public opinion... I just push certain bills when the time is right...

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 171

no
     

Total Seats: 262

abstain
 

Total Seats: 17


Random fact: Real-life quotations may be used in Particracy, but the real-life speaker or author should always be referenced in an OOC (out-of-character) note alongside the quotation.

Random quote: "The radical right is so homophobic that they're blaming global warming on the AIDS quilt." - Dennis Miller

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 71