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: Uses of the Army
Details
Submitted by[?]: Trunder 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: February 2440
Description[?]:
| I propose to increase the funding of our nations military institutions, and also adjust how our army is being controlled and used. Currently we do not face any immediate risk of an all-out war, but it is still wise to have a vigilant and strong army capable of dealing with any confrontations we might run into. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Current: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Proposed: Defence industries are privately owned but subsidised by the state.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:32:32, August 03, 2007 CET | From |  New Liberal Action | To | Debating the Uses of the Army |
| Message | I just have a question about this wording in Article one. Since the State is (im assuming) the major client in the defence industry, would it be considered a subsidy if we asked them to develop a new kind of battleship for instance? |
| Date | 22:38:41, August 03, 2007 CET | From | Union for Social Justice | To | Debating the Uses of the Army |
| Message | We oppose. Especially article 2, the policy and military should be as seperate as possible to protect civil liberties. |
| Date | 23:19:37, August 03, 2007 CET | From | New Liberal Action | To | Debating the Uses of the Army |
| Message | Just for the record, we also oppose 2 for the same reason, and pending clarification of our earlier question, we oppose one too |
| Date | 12:46:13, August 04, 2007 CET | From | Trunder Party | To | Debating the Uses of the Army |
| Message | As for the first question, the way I see it, development of new equipment must surely be part of the defence industries' tasks. Besides, if we do subsidise the defence industry, they will have to agree to use those funds in the manner the government decides. I'm removing article 2, as there is too much opposition against it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 42 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 354 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 29 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "In heaven all the interesting people are missing." - Friedrich Nietzsche |