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: Private Car Bill of 2090
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: June 2091
Description[?]:
| This bill allows for the ownership and use of private cars. While multiple car ownership is allowed, public transportation and economically friendly means of travel are encouraged. This bill benefits families who may need more than one car for school, work, etc..and where public transportation is lacking. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning private cars.
Old value:: Only one car allowed per household, people are encouraged to travel collective and tax incentives on cars using environmentally friendly fuels.
Current: Only cars using environmentally friendly fuels are allowed.
Proposed: Private cars are allowed, but people are encouraged to travel collective and tax incentives are provided for cars using environmentally friendly fuels.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:57:14, August 05, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Private Car Bill of 2090 |
| Message | This will help families who's needs require more than one car per family. Various jobs, school, and other activities that make it difficult to attend when only allowed one car per household is allowed. |
| Date | 04:28:50, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Private Car Bill of 2090 |
| Message | Oops,didn't intend to send it to vote. Sorry |
| Date | 10:35:11, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Standing-At-The-Back-Dressed-Stupidly | To | Debating the Private Car Bill of 2090 |
| Message | Well since pollution in Hobrazia is very low, we don't want to let it increase, and spoil what we have going - but on the other hand pollution shouldn't increase a vast amount because of this, the tax incentives helpto cover that base. |
| Date | 14:14:09, August 05, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Private Car Bill of 2090 |
| Message | Public transport is also an option, and I do believe that Hobrazians were in favour of this one car policy anyway. We're going to reject this Bill. |
| Date | 14:21:19, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Private Car Bill of 2090 |
| Message | How about this scenerio, there is only one car while there are 4 family members who work in different sections of town. They live in a rural area where public transportation is scarce. What about the workers who can't get to work because they share one car for a family. I thought you USM cared more about the workers than what the middle class Hobrazians want. What if they work the graveyard shift and busses don't run 24 hours a day in that area? Do you really care for the workers? One car per family are keeping family's in poverty, which I thought you oppose... |
| Date | 21:42:56, August 05, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Private Car Bill of 2090 |
| Message | It is a fact that the middle class are more likely to have more than one car, so that point is moot. One car per family is not keeping families in poverty, that is absolutely ridiculous. Cars cost a lot of money to run and to insure, and so many of those in poverty wouldn't have one anyway. If these big national companies really cared for their workers, some sort of service would be in place to allow them to get to work. Car sharing is also an option. I thought that the L-PU would care about the environment more? More than one car means a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and that is to everyone's benefit. In short, we find it ridiculous that you claim we are not alligned to the proletariat for our rejection of what is essentially a luxury item which is often abused by the upper and middle classes. |
| Date | 00:36:44, August 06, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Private Car Bill of 2090 |
| Message | In 1906 a car was a luxury item not now. Car sharing among 4 -5 people actualy will cost more to maintain then owning 2 cars, which by the way give off far less emissions than those big public busses. Owning a extra car won't bring on the end of the world due to it's massice emissions. And if you noticed on the proposal there are tax incentives for using more effecient, environmentally safe fuels. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 161 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 207 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 32 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: "The packaging for a microwavable 'microwave' dinner is programmed for a shelf life of maybe six months, a cook time of two minutes and a landfill dead-time of centuries." - David Wann |