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: Forestry Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Republics 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: November 2414
Description[?]:
| Establishes a unified forestry policy by eliminating local monopolies, but protects scenic and environmentally sensitive locations. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National, cultural and historic sites and monuments.
Old value:: This matter is left up to the local governments.
Current: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Proposed: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: Local governments may set up forestry agencies. Where they do not, forestry is on a commercial basis.
Current: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Proposed: All forestry is performed by private companies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:44:28, June 13, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | Keep in mind the history of this country, traditionaly, forests are resources that belong to the Kingdom they are located in. Why would we want to further decrease local governmental control? |
| Date | 22:24:14, June 13, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | It is our position that local governments should not be allowed to establish monopolies which is what can happen under the status quo. One set of rules will enable companies to establish uniform techniques across lodamun and cut down on red tape. However, Lodamun will continue to protect its natural beauty as stated in article 1. URP would also like to point out that logging companies are required to replant trees they cut down under current law. |
| Date | 23:05:57, June 13, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | We have trouble supporting a bill that seems to guard against monopolies (the so-called "local monopolies") but in reality opens the door to true capitalist monopolies. At present, the law may allow a local government to control ONE area's entire foresting industry, but under the proposed law a single private company could take over the ENTIRE foresting industry of our kingdom. This is a risk we feel that we cannot take just to bolster capitalism in Lodamun. We have no real problem with Article 1, however we still prefer it the way it stands as is. If it is proven that the local governments cannot maintain their cultural and historic sites, we would be open to changing this law. |
| Date | 23:11:48, June 13, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | I am aware of our replant policy. Other than allowing for less red tape, why would we want to change things? Currently, we allow local governments to regulate when, where, and how much forestation can be cut down in their land. Also, they decide what's worth keeping preserved and what is able to be cut down. They already have their own forestry departments. With this one piece of seemingly harmless legislation, you seek to destroy local forestry offices; take away local revenue by making companies deal with the federal government; and grow the federal budget by forcing us to create our own forestry and historical departments. This is poorly thought out legislation at best, and the most reckless and ignoble form of capitalism at worst. |
| Date | 05:57:02, June 14, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | I suppose according to the LDP, we should have local governments monopolize every industry because of the threat of a private monopoly. |
| Date | 13:20:14, June 14, 2007 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | We can not agree to no.2. |
| Date | 13:47:11, June 14, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | According to the ideals of Distributionism, industry should be devolved as low as realistically possible. It's not that the LDP vehemently opposes this bill, it's that, as foresting by individual citizens is admittedly unrealistic, we prefer the status quo simply because it avoids the threat of large corporations and national monopolies. |
| Date | 21:40:35, June 14, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | by "local monopoly" you mean local government overseeing the natural resources native to their Kingdom, correct? This is not, actually, a monopoly. It is what you're advocating on a smaller scale, with the people it actually affects deciding where the resources go. I think the race bling I'll have made for the URP will be a top hat and a cane, perhaps a monocle. You may as well change your party name to "Land Barons for an Oligarchy" because for all your claims for wanting to represent Lodamun with a republic, when it comes down to it, you'll happily step on the little guy to further your extremist capitalist ambitions. The people want responsible government, not the industrial revolution. We may as well start handing out socialist t-shirts because that's where we're headed as soon as the people gets sick of your recklessness and all the moderate voices in parliament won't be able to stem that tide. |
| Date | 21:59:08, June 14, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | there is no proof that a national monopoly will exist. But states do have monopolies on the forests under the status quo. Let logging be performed by private companies. this is not a radical concept |
| Date | 22:58:47, June 14, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | You're right. its not a radical concept, that's why states have been doing it for years before the URP came along with thier heavy-handed ideas to increase the size and budget of our federal government. I can't stress this enough, this bill will hurt our infrastructure. It will negate the forestry agencies set up in each Kingdom and create a federal regulatory body. This wastes money on every level. |
| Date | 05:26:34, June 16, 2007 CET | From | The Unified Lodamun Party | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | I support Article 1, but Article 2 creates more government, and that is just silly. |
| Date | 05:27:52, June 16, 2007 CET | From | The Unified Lodamun Party | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | Strike that, I'm an idiot. I do disagree with Article 2, but got mixed up in the head with the debate going on. Our logging industry is functioning perfectly fine as is, there is no need to change it. |
| Date | 03:20:34, June 17, 2007 CET | From | Independent Republican Party | To | Debating the Forestry Reform Act |
| Message | We support both articles. Contrary to the LDP's beliefs, we don't feel that leaving foresting to the private sector will create a monopoly. Instead, it will create competition which will be good for the economy. Also, it will not harm the environment since there are other laws in place to protect it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 337 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 262 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky |