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: Free Market Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Freedom 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: February 2091
Description[?]:
| A bill to establish markets that are more free in our fair land. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Current: Agricultural crops which are considered beneficial to the enviroment or to the continued ecological safety of the state are subsidized.
Proposed: The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: Certain industries are owned by the state, all others are under private ownership.
Current: Certain industries are owned by the state, all others are under private ownership.
Proposed: The government does not intervene in the market nor provide any form of subsidies/relief to industries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:01:18, August 02, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | No, no and no. The first article would disable the poorest people to use contraceptives, the second article would destroy our agricultural sector and the third article would make us more dependent on foreign imports. |
| Date | 22:04:50, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | Nay, aye and aye. Rutania Social Democrat Party - The second one wouldnt destroy our agriculture, it would force tiny and unproductive farms to merge to remain profitable, thereby increasing our economy. Subsidies only harm economies, but in the short term keep people in work and that's the only reason for them. An economy with subsidies cannot remain dynamic and competitive. |
| Date | 23:47:42, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | It would not disable the poorest people to use contraceptives. [OOC] I'm a poor student from a poor family and yet i can afford and use contraception because i want to use it and i am not an idiot. |
| Date | 01:06:13, August 03, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | "but in the short term keep people in work and that's the only reason for them" Then why are you in favour of article 3? |
| Date | 01:06:33, August 03, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | Now article 2, sorry. |
| Date | 11:01:17, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | I'm for the first one definitely - its just Article two worries me - what, for example, about the defense industries - surely some kind of control is needed to ensure that they don't cut costs and create weapons that blow up when you press the trigger. I'll support this if an addendum is made excepting the defense industries from Article Two |
| Date | 11:11:49, August 03, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | You seem to forget that without subsidies many people will lose their jobs. |
| Date | 11:20:19, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | In the short term they will, but because of our flexible labour laws and our capitalist economy, they will find new ones and in the long term they will be better off. [OOC] For example look at the difference between Britain and France. Britain does not subsidise or own much or any industry any more and we have low unemployment, when our car maker Rover collapsed the government did not bail them out. Most of those workers who lost their jobs have found new ones anyway. Look at France, they subsidise lots of businesses and own lots of them too, they are a very socialist country compared to Britain. They have employment at over 10%, they have a weaker economy, and their GDP per capita and their GNP have been taken over by Britain and now Britain is catching up with Germany on the GDP/GNP front and i believe has already passed it on the GDP per capita statistics. Germany has 10% or more unemployed as well. Socialism does not work, social democratism doesnt work in economics, free market capitalism does. |
| Date | 12:05:44, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | Good arguments - but I'm afraid I'll only support with a defence addendum |
| Date | 12:28:07, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | GRP, we do not need to do that. Defense companies will survive because we will buying from them. We will continue to buy our military equipment from them and with the addition of nuclear weapons and research into chemical and biological weapons research they will do fine and wont need support. SHould they need support we can try and pass something to give them or suddenly need a new order of aircraft carriers. |
| Date | 15:39:31, August 03, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | "they are a very socialist country compared to Britain." Socialist? With a Gaullist president? |
| Date | 15:41:04, August 03, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | "Socialism does not work, social democratism doesnt work in economics, free market capitalism does." Communism does not work, democratic socialism is also against free market so that would make things rather boring. Social-democracy DOES work in economics because it is a free, but social market, meaning a free market economy with a social security system to look after the poor and the unemployed. |
| Date | 15:41:34, August 03, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | Besides, the British Labour Party calls itself social-democrats.... |
| Date | 23:52:34, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | Does it matter what their president is? NO Their social system and economic system is socialist (i dont care what the labour party call themselves) |
| Date | 10:57:22, August 04, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | France has been ruled by a Gaullist President for years now, while the UK has been ruled by a Social-Democratic Party for years now. Looks obvious to me. |
| Date | 13:41:01, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | Their President supports and is an advocate of socialist policies in the labour market, agriculture market and in business. |
| Date | 14:44:09, August 04, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | You must be really very far to the right if you think the Gaullists advocate socialist policies. |
| Date | 18:50:17, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | I dont care if he worships at de gaulle's feet, de gualle was an idiot and i dont care if Chirac is a guallit he advocates a rigid labour market, rigid job protection, strong unions, agricultural subsidies and the French government owning most of their biggest companies. Thats socialist policies. |
| Date | 22:38:29, August 04, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | I hope no Frenchmen heard that.... |
| Date | 22:39:41, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Free Market Act |
| Message | Sorry, I'm against because of the defence thing - I've studied enough history to know that if defence companies don't have government supervision, then they mass-produce weapons at the cheapest cost without decent regulations; they get the profits, the military get guns that jam, shells without enough explosive, masks that don't fit, missiles that don't fire etc, etc... If an addendum was added, you'd get my undying support |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 271 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 252 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 76 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow role-play that seems to belong to the world of fantasy, science fiction and futuristic speculation. |
| Random quote: "The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people." - Noam Chomsky |