Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5461
Next month in: 01:05:34
Server time: 22:54:25, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (4): HawkDun | Klexi | R Drax | reformist2024 | 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: New Military Industry

Details

Submitted by[?]: Free Lodamun

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: August 2419

Description[?]:

Some clarification on each article:

Article 1.) In order to keep better ties on our defense industry, we propose that the state funds their own research labs. These would not reduce the number of private businesses. In fact, we intend for our nationalized program to work hand in hand with the private sector to keep Lodamun at the top of the industry for the betterment of our country and the private businesses helping.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date21:00:42, June 23, 2007 CET
FromFree Lodamun
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageI understand that these are varied and all 3 will not be supported, in the event of a failure I will introduce them individually.

Date21:08:42, June 23, 2007 CET
FromRadical Nationalist Party
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageI can agee to articles 2+3 but not 1, we feel that defence industries in private hands is a dangerous thing. It is open for abuse and corruption.

Date21:11:12, June 23, 2007 CET
FromLodamun Distributionist Party
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageWe can agree to articles 1 and 2, but we still see 3 as far too easy to abuse.

Date21:23:43, June 23, 2007 CET
FromDemocrats
ToDebating the New Military Industry
Message4 months of military training is pointless, wasteful of resources, and wasteful of the time of professionals.

Date21:25:35, June 23, 2007 CET
FromLodamun Distributionist Party
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageWould the NMP prefer a longer period?

Date21:37:46, June 23, 2007 CET
FromDemocrats
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageWe will probably have to vote against this, because of Article Two. We see peacetime conscription as wasteful of resources, and the time of the young men and women in our nation.

Date21:38:30, June 23, 2007 CET
FromFree Lodamun
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageWe're open to a longer period. Truth be told, We've been down this road and FL is attempting to compromise. If we can get the votes together, We would certainly be in favor of a year.

Date22:40:49, June 23, 2007 CET
FromRadical Nationalist Party
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageNational Service teaches our youth skills they may need later in life. It also teaches respect of others and authority.

Also only having conscription in times of war is stupid as you end up with a untrained rabble that wouldnt last long in the field. If needed for war our people would have the skills and knowledge needed to survive in a war.

Date00:28:12, June 24, 2007 CET
FromDemocrats
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageSkills they may need? Most citizens will never require the need to kill, or to march 4 miles in full combat gear in an hour, or to understand basic drill. Respect and authority is more likely to be taught by parents, teachers and sunday school than it is through four months of basic military training.

Conscription is only needed in war if one is fighting total war. However for most wars a small but highly professional and well armed army is needed. Conscription reduces the professionalism of a force and ensures that money is wasted on the training of conscripts who serve no real purpose as they lack the motivation of a professional soldier. Citizen armies are all very nice, but they lack the cutting edge of a volunteer army.

Date00:39:31, June 24, 2007 CET
FromUnited Republics Party
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageThe URP cannot support a single aspect of this bill.

Date01:14:47, June 24, 2007 CET
FromFree Lodamun
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageThe bill was broken apart to better facilitate debate. Now, this thread is only on the above article.

Date01:58:42, June 24, 2007 CET
FromRadical Nationalist Party
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageWe will agree to this.

Date17:12:32, June 24, 2007 CET
FromCommunist Party of Lodamun
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageA small step to nationalization. The CPL supports.

Date17:35:58, June 25, 2007 CET
FromNew Democratic Party
ToDebating the New Military Industry
MessageAren't there some defense pursuits that we want to control completely: sensitive or important jobs we can't trust to private companies? I hate to consider trusting our nuclear arsenal to a corporation. This would allow us to establish an agency to work with existing private companies.

This will create jobs and perhaps create some small competition for private companies, allowing them to expand into new aspects of defense. Though we don't see it as a step toward nationalization, the NDP can support this bill.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
      

Total Seats: 281

no
  

Total Seats: 279

abstain
 

Total Seats: 39


Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules.

Random quote: "Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." Charles De Gaulle (1890 - 1970)

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 85