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: Curtailing Public Decadence
Details
Submitted by[?]: Marxist-Leninist Happiness Front
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 2455
Description[?]:
Not to be prudish or anything but we'd prefer people do their business in private. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Displays of public affection and obscenity laws.
Old value:: There are no laws regarding obscene public acts.
Current: There are no laws regarding obscene public acts.
Proposed: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:30:49, September 13, 2007 CET | From |  War is Peace Party | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | Imperial Egoists I thought you were for freedom of the individual, what makes this different? |
| Date | 17:26:36, September 13, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Cildanian Egoists | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | There are times in every society where the freedoms of some conflict with the freedoms of others. We do not propose to restrict the actual activity of any individual: we merely choose to protect the ability of individuals to walk through the public streets without seeing acne-ridden 250 pound pizza boys with their equally robust girlfriends fornicating in the middle of such street. There is such a thing, on a moral level, as a crime against the senses. We respect the property rights of owners. If an area is truly (and accurately) considerable as "public", that means it belongs to the government, which means it belongs to the citizens, and more citizens would wish to not see the ugly fornicating before them, than would wish to themselves engage in such fornication. As to private enterprises sometimes considered as public, such as movie theaters or sporting stadiums, it is up to the particular venues to determine rules, and this law would not effect that. That being said, we feel safe in assuming that most businesses would be likewise opposed to intercourse on their property. |
| Date | 18:31:46, September 13, 2007 CET | From | Justice League of Cildania | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | The roads and streets have been privatized since 2401, owned by private companies who run on a for-profit basis (This is why we have no funding for a department of transportation). Any private landowner retains the right to restrict whatever human activity they wish. It is not, however, the role of the government to determine cultural values by restricting activity by force. |
| Date | 19:23:06, September 13, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Cildanian Egoists | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | Again, if it is on propety accurately definable as "public", the restriction is valid. The only property defineable as public is that which is not private. Even if the only public property left are the halls of government themselves, the principle is still valid that in public places individuals should be free from visual assault. Where property is public, the government operates in the position of steward, and must make the decisions normally reserved to the property owner. |
| Date | 20:20:27, September 13, 2007 CET | From | Justice League of Cildania | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | Whatever 'visual assault' is, it is not the use of force, and the government does not have the right to impose its own standard of decency on individuals by restricting their rights to free speech and expression. |
| Date | 22:21:51, September 13, 2007 CET | From | Action | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | You preserve the right not to see overweight fornication but stand against the right to walk safely down said streets, stand against the right to live? It seems for policies are more imposed by personal fancy rather than any political aims |
| Date | 22:43:02, September 13, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Cildanian Egoists | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | As the JLC so correctly pointed out, the streets have been privatized. So as a practical matter, we stand more for the right not to see overweight fornication on the floor of the legislature, or on the parade grounds of our military bases, areas which are decidedly public. And what is this babble about being against street safety? If someone is foolish enough to walk down the street rather than the sidewalk, he deserves to be hit. In the alternative, if he is hit on the sidewalk, he or his survivors may sue the foolish driver who hit him. The common law of negligence does not derive from any act of any legislature. |
| Date | 23:34:02, September 13, 2007 CET | From | Action | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | OOC- In English rather than the strange dialects adopted by the more adventurous colonials the word Sidewalk does not exist, one walks down a street implying that he walks along the footpath, pavement or in less urbanised regions, ditch. If one walks in the actual land we say he was in the street, or on or along the street. IC- Crime is rampant, although the progressive legalisation of everything dangerous or criminal distorts such figures, armed gangs and extortionists are freely allowed to roam the streets, Vice and Depravity run rampant, the streets of major cities especially in Akildar and Gilzon are no longer safe to tread. The Reds arm themselves against reactionism, vigilantes and private security act for profit alone and the police are progressively outnumber and rendered powerless, Redundant even by the deregulations and legalisations of the Co-Alition government. |
| Date | 23:44:52, September 13, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Cildanian Egoists | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | OOC: If I had acknowledged that common usage in my response, I would have been robbed of the opportunity to say the pedestrian deserved to be hit. Small pleasures. Also does not invalidate the lawsuit point, lol. IC: Your fairy tale depictions of life in Cildania are increasingly far-fetched, and really quite amusing, do continue. We are at this time enjoying unprecented economic growth and success, due to the equalization of the tax burden and elimination of all extraneous government programs. The police have little to do, other than that duty which should always have been primary, the pursuit of murderers, rapists, and thieves. Due to the fact that those are the only criminals left to us, police success in catching them has reach unprecedented heights, and with all the prison space freed up by the elimination of unjust laws, the system is now capable of jailing such real criminals for the full length of their sentences, rather than releasing them early in order to make room for other, lesser, criminals. The Reds do arm themselves, but there are fewer and fewer of them to arm, as the people of Cildania grow to see the beauty of life in a State of Liberty, and abandon their ranks. Cildania, Jewel of the Sea, shines brighter today than it ever has before, and the future looks brighter still. |
| Date | 00:09:25, September 14, 2007 CET | From | Action | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | What do you desire from freedom? or our dear goddess Liberty? Jairus stated in his works, the Dictum that intervening in order to prevent a murder is to curtail the freedom of the murderer and yet that freedom, by definition is natural and universal. One may consider that taking the bottle from a man killing himself with drink is charitable and indeed praise worth act, and certainly our tabloids who take that view, and yet it is a curtail to his freedom. Jairus states that freedom is mankinds natural state. But then so is sitting in a cave living off carrion. The Civilisation requires liberty, but the effort to adopt absolute liberty is at the cost of civilisation. |
| Date | 00:17:27, September 14, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Cildanian Egoists | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | "Civilization" as the term is generally used, is overrated, and is not the natural state of man. Civilization gives rise to lying, cheating, fraud, deception, oppression of man by his fellow man. Judged on an individual basis, the barbarian is a clearly superior and more noble being as compared to the "civilized" man. When you steal from a civilized man, he runs to the government for help. When you steal from a barbarian, he chases you down and takes back his property. When you attack a civilized man, he runs away looking for a place to hide. When you attack a barbarian, he fights back. When you kill or rape someone a civilized man cares about, he runs to the government crying for help. When you kill or rape someone a barbarian cares about, he tracks you down and tears your head from your shoulders. All things considered, a society can propse more readily without "civilization" than it can without liberty. Oh, and as to the man with the drink, he may kill himself with it if he wishes. That is his right as an individual, and it is not the place of any man to intervene. |
| Date | 00:18:27, September 14, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Cildanian Egoists | To | Debating the Curtailing Public Decadence |
| Message | er, prosper on that last one, not propse |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 189 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 194 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 42 |
| Random fact: Once approved, players should copy Cultural Protocols into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Protocols". This bill should include links to the passed Cultural Protocol bill and the Moderation approval. |
| Random quote: "The National Rifle Association says, 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people,' but I think the gun helps." - Eddie Izzard |