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: UIF Bill: Infastructure
Details
Submitted by[?]: I need to make new party
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: July 2431
Description[?]:
| Infastructure Proposals The post office should be nationalized cause if its private some more rural areas of the country will no get the service they need and more pople will moveout of there to get closer to services tey do need. So our opulation will become to urbanized and our coutnry side depopulated al because the pivate insutries wont bring the services needed out there for lack of profit. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the post office
Old value:: Only private post agencies exist, and the services they provide are unregulated.
Current: There is a nationalised post office. Private post office agencies are allowed to exist, and the services provided by them are not regulated.
Proposed: There is a nationalised post office. Private post office agencies are allowed to exist, and the services provided by them are not regulated.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Train Operating Companies (TOC).
Old value:: Private companies operate TOCs throughout the country.
Current: Private companies operate TOCs throughout the country.
Proposed: The State owns and operates a national TOC, alongside private TOCs.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:34:48, July 17, 2007 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | I get your politics now: its to create as much waste as is humanly possible and drive the nation down into the ground with a bloated morass of bureaucracy. It all makes sense. I'll go over that slowly for you UIF: This bill, just like the one suggesting there be a public/private defence industry, creates waste which outweighs any benefits a hybrid system may have. Either go public or private, don't pussyfoot in no-man's land. |
| Date | 04:40:21, July 17, 2007 CET | From | I need to make new party | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | You do know ve seen aot of billsand soooo many people wanted private and nationalized defense industries... So dont say shit about me since you where like the only person who wanted only national defense industry. Second whats your politics... I dont get them. You flip flop from the left to the right constantly and have the most sarcastic and cockish arguments. And How am I being bearucratic if Im also offering privatized TOCs... The post office should be nationalized cause if its private some more rural areas of the country will no get the service they need and more pople will moveout of there to get closer to services tey do need. So our opulation will become to urbanized and our coutnry side depopulated al because the pivate insutries wont bring the services needed out there for lack of profit. Thats why national with private should be made. |
| Date | 05:04:37, July 17, 2007 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | Cause the raising demand for housing within the major city structure will totally not raise the pricing enough to make outer regeons non appealing financially to anyone o.O o.o not at all |
| Date | 06:22:04, July 17, 2007 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | "So dont say shit about me since you where like the only person who wanted only national defense industry" If you read carefully, I was comparing this bill to the hybrid defence proposals. I didn't say you were the cause of it. 'You flip flop from the left to the right constantly" Its pretty straightforward. No limits on what people can do socially without harming others. Government provides public health, defence, infrastructure (although service providers are private), (limited) welfare and full education to maximise people's usefulness to society. The rest is up to the free market. It does seem flip-floppish at first glance but there is a die-hard consistency that has borne itself out over the decades. "have the most sarcastic and cockish arguments. " Sarcastic indeed but you mostly just miss the point which frustrates you and leads to these little rants which provide amusement for all. "if its private some more rural areas of the country will no get the service they need" Then prices will rise in rural areas as supply of the postal service decreases making them a more attractive commercial prospect. That's the free market. And since this law has been in place for a significant length of time, one would expect your doom and gloom scenario would have come to pass already and no one cares anymore. Anyway, if you introduce additional public services, what's the point? The free market has it covered. That's how you're increasing bureaucracy which, in this case, is a catch-all term for government services funded by the tax-payer. Also, our nation is rather heavily urbanised. IIRC ~60% of our people lived in the thirty largest cities, some 30% or so lived in the largest five. Such facts were lost with the last game wiki. |
| Date | 13:47:20, July 17, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | good shit! not perfect but a start |
| Date | 18:30:32, July 17, 2007 CET | From | I need to make new party | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | No that info in still on the wiki and I knew most the population was urabnized... But Im no intrusting alll services to priavte companies so they can rule the country.. Lets say the economy fell into a depression think of all the services crumbling down andthen theres no public servicesto fall back too. Im not in favor of huge government Im not saying we shouldnt in trust everything to corporations. W should plan if the corporations fail and the economy might become crippled fr a short time. Lastly you do flip fop. You say you intrust he corps and private enterprse yet you deny them tax cuts. If they have to provide all these services why not give them a tax break. |
| Date | 20:40:23, July 17, 2007 CET | From | Gazelle Party | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | "If they have to provide all these services why not give them a tax break." Nobody is being made to do anything. If there's money to be made, people will make it. I'm not saying I completely dislike this bill, as nationalizing these industries does have its advantages, but OP does know what he's talking about. I like the idea of this bill because it would provide nationalized service to everyone without allowing a monopoly, but I agree that this will probably cost country more money than it can afford; so I'll be voting 'no'. |
| Date | 23:02:44, July 17, 2007 CET | From | I need to make new party | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | Your missingmy point... My point is that he says tha he wants the corporations to deal with all these services like trains and postal. But At he same time he denies them tax cuts. My point is that nationalized services should be along side private ones.. SO if the private ones fail all the necessary services are still in place... Anyhow the money the nationalized services make will probably pay or a majority of them |
| Date | 00:20:52, July 18, 2007 CET | From | Gazelle Party | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | You can't have businesses competing with government and expect that we won't have financial issues. "My point is that he says tha he wants the corporations to deal with all these services like trains and postal. But At he same time he denies them tax cuts." My point is that people will deal with it if there is any money to be made. OP made a very good point when he referenced the corporation tax rate of other countries. I'm still for the tax cut, but private business can function at the current level of taxation, and indeed will if money can be made. |
| Date | 00:33:31, July 18, 2007 CET | From | I need to make new party | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | We have socialized alot of things our Health Care Police and fire fighters... And yes they can compete against the government. |
| Date | 00:38:50, July 18, 2007 CET | From | Gazelle Party | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | I'm not worried about them competing against the governement; I'm worried about them shafting the government. While government run businesses have to cater to all citizens and regions, private businesses can pick and choose how to operate. They have the power to undersell the government and will hurt profits in doing so. That's why the U.S. doesn't allow unregulated postal services. |
| Date | 03:03:41, July 18, 2007 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | "Lets say the economy fell into a depression think of all the services crumbling down andthen theres no public servicesto fall back too." If private industry cannot adequately handle the responsibility of providing essential services, I believe the government has the option of nationalising them for the common good. Certain right wing elements wish to remove such safeguards. "OP does know what he's talking about." Thank you. Someone with some rationality around here. "We have socialized alot of things our Health Care Police and fire fighters" That's because trusting a corporation to necessarily provide you with health care or security of life and property is a bad idea. Trusting a corporation to deliver your mail or run a train on time is a good idea. Do you see the difference? One directly affects how and if you live. The other can just be a pain in the ass if things go wrong. Its not worth the tax aureus to make sure things don't go wrong. |
| Date | 03:07:52, July 19, 2007 CET | From | I need to make new party | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | The fact that I wanted some private infastructure corps to exist alongside nationolized ones was to have cheaper services maybe yto more rural parts of the country and in case of a economic emergency not all services would be gone... Lastly to make sure that private corps dont control all matters of internal infastrcutrue without some government regulation |
| Date | 07:20:47, July 19, 2007 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the UIF Bill: Infastructure |
| Message | The corporations don't control the actual infrastructure. The government does (OOC: at least we would if there was a proper proposal for it). This is to avoid inter-corporation gridlock. Your proposals just deal with service providers. That's is different. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 60 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 140 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Large scale RP planning (such as wars, regional/continental conflicts, economic collapse, etc.) should be planned (as best as it can be) and should have consent of a majority of players involved. |
| Random quote: "The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain |