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: E pluribus unum
Details
Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2095
Description[?]:
| As a parliament comprised mostly of self-declared libertarians, each party finding its own way to define the empowerment of the individuals who make up the people of our nation, there is no honour greater than to be known as a citizen of Lodamun. We have no need of figureheads, we have no need of a patrician. We are proud of ourselves, of each other and of our democracy. The position of Head of State should be reflect this and should be a symbol of the greatness in each of us. Furthermore, as well as having a title which reminds us of our own individual value within the vast community which is Lodamun, the post of Head of State should also be free of the political wrangles. This bill removes all activity from the position of Head of State other than ceremonial duties. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The formal title of the Head of State.
Old value:: President-Councillor
Current: President of the Commonwealth
Proposed: Citizen
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:42:33, August 09, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | No. The head of state is a position not a person. Positions can not be citizens. The person who holds that office is a citizen, but the title of the office should be a little more impressive for dealing with foreign nations. |
| Date | 01:46:57, August 09, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | No. Our citizens are impressive. No. There will be no dealing with foreign nations. |
| Date | 01:52:25, August 09, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | There will be no dealing with foreign nations? What happened to the international intervention that the Equitista has voted in favor of so often in the past? |
| Date | 01:57:36, August 09, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | That's the job of the foreign minister, the Head of Government and other members of the cabinet, who may speak on behalf of the government. Or it's the job of parliamentary members speaking on behalf of their parties, with plans to refer initiatives to parliament. |
| Date | 04:35:50, August 09, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | "As a parliament comprised of mostly of libertarians" The last time I checked, there was just the two of us. Supported. |
| Date | 11:03:24, August 09, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | Amended: "comprised mostly of self-declared libertarians" |
| Date | 16:43:10, August 09, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | CNT is right, there are only two Libertarians in our parliament, TiC and ourselves. However that is a terminological debate. If Equitista wishes to have purely ceramonial duties for the Head of State why does he not propose a constitutional monarchy. This would be far more appropriate to a purportedly democratic party than their position of distrusting the person directly elected by the people of our nation. |
| Date | 03:05:26, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | "comprised mostly of self-declared libertarians" I dont mean to criticize or disagree with anyone here, but who in this parliament considers themself to be a libertarian? I know that the DSP used to call themselves the "Libertarian Socialists", and CNT has professed to be a anarchist(which differs very much with libertarians, imo). Are there other parties here, other than TiC and ASP, that are "self declared libertarians"? |
| Date | 05:58:42, August 10, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | We are libertarians, as are equitista. The DSP pay have started off as a libertarian party, but is one no longer. |
| Date | 14:38:16, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | How do you reconcile the concept of liberty, as in libertarian, with the regulatory stance that both Equitista and CNT have taken on issues such as education, health care and defence? |
| Date | 17:57:02, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | for the record, the Greens do not claim to be libertarians. We do however seek our "own way to define the empowerment of the individuals who make up the people of our nation." We agree that there are no distinctions higher than Citizen of Lodamun. maybe "Presiding Citizen" would address concerns raised? |
| Date | 18:28:36, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | The President-Councillor is a citizen, whether you call him one or not. |
| Date | 20:17:19, August 10, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | There is no liberty without justice. |
| Date | 03:11:13, August 12, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | We agree there is no liberty without justice, but we do not think of justice as enforced slavery to an ideal of equality of outcome. More importantly there can be no justice without liberty. A just agreement is one theat both parties voluntarily agree to. If they are free to agree or to decline to agree then justice can exist. If they are not free to decline the agreement, then the agreement can not be known to be just. (It may be just, but that is unprovable under those circumstances.) |
| Date | 10:40:17, August 12, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | We do not think either justice or freedom should be bought. Therefore, on issues we consider to be basic needs, we level the playing field. And, of course, those with the spondula are entirely free to live anywhere else in the world but they choose to stay. As you well know, there are many millions of people who are not free to accept - or decline - an agreement which gives better health care, housing, education, etc to those who can pay. It is an agreement which can not be known to be just. |
| Date | 18:01:23, August 12, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | spondula? |
| Date | 09:13:18, August 13, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the E pluribus unum |
| Message | money ((although it does sound rather like a high-powered gondola)) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 188 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 190 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 72 |
| Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
| Random quote: "Public schools are government-established, politician- and bureaucrat-controlled, fully politicized, taxpayer-supported, authoritarian socialist institutions. In fact, the public-school system is one of the purest examples of socialism existing in America." - Thomas L. Johnson |