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: Stop Compulsory Conservationism
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
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 2088
Description[?]:
| This nation tends to be very skeptical of environmentalist claims, therefore it hardly makes any sense to force the people to pay for recycling facilities that they do not want. It makes even less sense to force them to use them. We propose that all public recycling facilities of Lodamun be sold to the highest bidder, and all laws forcing the people to use them be repealed. Revenue recovered from the sale shall be returned to the people from which it was taxed, in the form of a "no strings attached" tax rebate, to be paid on the next years tax return. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government-sponsored recycling programs.
Old value:: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Current: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Proposed: There is no national policy regarding recycled garbage.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:15:03, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | We agree with the repeal of the compulsory recycling. However the tax cut which is a revenue reduction can not be justified on the basis of a one off capital liquidation (bad accounting TiC). What could be done is a larger tax rebate be paid the year in which the capital is liquidated, on a pro rata basis. |
| Date | 17:28:19, July 29, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | Explain how to work that into the bill.... |
| Date | 17:51:13, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | Just state it in place of the tax cut. |
| Date | 18:35:03, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | state it? I am wondering what exactly you want stated... |
| Date | 18:55:41, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | change the worsds "tax cut" to "tax rebate". That would do the job. |
| Date | 20:06:55, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | I don't see an acceptable reason to destroy the nations environment. |
| Date | 20:12:05, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | This has nothing to do with the environment. To the contrary, most environmental pollution, at least in my area, is caused by electrical power generation. Recycling is very power intensive, to the point that sometimes it is cheaper just to throw something away. |
| Date | 02:06:00, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | that's a misunderstanding of the point of recycling, which I suppose is understandble if all you think about is the immediate cost-benefit analysis. recycling is about reducing the amount of trash in landfills (an environmental plus), reducing the amount of new products produced in favour of re-using (another plus), reducing the strain on natural resources (another plus) and so on. if it is done in large enough amounts (which mandatory recycling makes possible) then it is quite cheap. however, if you end recycling programs and leave it up to the individual as self-motivated economic actor, then yes, recycling will become more expensive than throwing things away, if we only consider that one isolated act. |
| Date | 19:19:18, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | While we understand your point, even agree with much of it, we feel that mandatory recycling is too much of an infringement upon liberty and property rights. Our own position: we would like to see recycling facilities, but are opposed completely to compelling people to use them, as well as pay for them. Therefore our original proposal value, on acceptable to us, was the middle option: Quote from ASP on the big bill: "6. This is a question of environmentalism against liberty apparently, but it is also a question of efficient utilisation of public spending. Thus we support the change away from compulsory recycling, but not to the provision of government funded recycling centres. If we are to fund them, then they will hacve to be used. If we are not to make it compulsory, then we should not fund it. " As we would support either option over the current value, we adjusted this to their preference. Compromise was possible from them, but not from you(GA), we felt. As this has been debated....Im going to go ahead and submit it. If the early election bounces it, then Ill put it back up afterwards... |
| Date | 19:38:35, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | TiC has quoted our reasons for supporting this. |
| Date | 06:44:19, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | will low-income people, who do not earn enough to pay taxes, also be comensated for this fire-sale? Or is the profit reserved only for the wealthy clientele of Tuesday is Coming, Incorporated? |
| Date | 23:55:21, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Stop Compulsory Conservationism |
| Message | The money belongs to those who earned it. If low income people do not pay taxes, they have no claim to any of this money, as they did not earn any of it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 217 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 174 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 59 |
| Random fact: If you want to leave Particracy, please inactivate yourself on your user page to save the moderation team some time. |
| Random quote: "If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other causes for prejudice by noon." - George Aiken |