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: Military Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertad 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: October 2456
Description[?]:
| The Libertad party has reviewed several parts of the national military legislation mainly focusing on three sectors: National Service, the Defense Industry, and Civil Defense. In the eyes of this party, these sections should be changed to improve a core value of any practical government: to promote the general welfare. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Civil defence is the government's policy on providing shelters to be used in the event of attacks on major cities, mainly nuclear attacks and bombing.
Old value:: Local authorities are responsible for building and maintaining shelters.
Current: No new buildings may be constructed unless they feature provisions for civil defence.
Proposed: Every public building is required to feature provisions for civil defence and at least 50% of spaces must be allocated to private citizens.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Current: The state owns all defence industries.
Proposed: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change National service.
Old value:: All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military.
Current: All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military.
Proposed: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve a term of civilian national service.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:38:48, September 15, 2007 CET | From | Libertad Party | To | Debating the Military Reform |
| Message | So, any issues with this? |
| Date | 23:50:14, September 15, 2007 CET | From | Libertad Party | To | Debating the Military Reform |
| Message | Well, it's been up for maybe 8+ hours. Any issues should've been voiced. |
| Date | 05:07:04, September 16, 2007 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Military Reform |
| Message | OCC I've being sleeping for 8+ hours :P Now...... Article 1: The Province Government will be far more effective then a national standard, say some rural, sparsely populated province built a public post office. This law would require them to spend even more tax payers money on a shelter that will never be used. This measure is just not necessary. Article 2: The Free Market, throughout history, has lowered prices and raised quality through competition for our contracts. Nationalizing them would be a step backwards for our military. Article 3: Lets think about that word "must". This means, in this context, force. When initiated by the state, force means slavery. You propose enslaving our own population for during nothing wrong. Zardugal has moved on from this period. |
| Date | 06:17:42, September 16, 2007 CET | From | Libertad Party | To | Debating the Military Reform |
| Message | 1:True. 2:Partially true, but adding to the number of corporations increases the competition between them, therefore, by your own logic, this is a steop forward rather than backwards on military efficiency. 3:We propose not slavery, but a period of time served once, not continuously, during which the young people of Zardugal will work on improving roads, and bringing modern technologies to the more rural parts of our country, areas your party has claimed to support in your prior arguments. Therefore, you will agree of course that there is nothing wrong with drafting young people to do work that they would be paid for, and is thus not slavery. In summation: While this not only reduces our unemployment rate for young people, it also brings improvement to our country, something no party should be against. |
| Date | 07:56:41, September 16, 2007 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Military Reform |
| Message | 1: Good 2: No, nationalizing corporations distorts the free market and wastes public money. Throughout history, nationalized corporations and institutions have being out done by the more expensive, private services. It's a fact. The big myth is, if we take away these public services, then no one will be able to afford the private ones. We live in a capitalistic economy, if a company goes under, leaving a large group of consumers unable to consume, a new company will spring up, and, being private, will provide better quality, cheaper products. Now, if we nationalize the private corporations, well, there's no point is there. We'll just end up spending more money on the better quality, private companies, as we pore tax payer's money into our nationalized ones and wonder why they keep failing. Option two, we buy from the corporations we owe, the private companies go under, and we're stuck with a monopoly of the defense industry with no competition, our military gets the same old, backward equipment. Let's stick to privatization. 3: Slavery is forcing someone to work against there will, regardless of pay. Now, if National Service was so effective and brought so much good, it would be a flourishing industry, in need of many workers. This means, typically, some labor shortage. If young people were actually having trouble finding work, surely they'd go and join the National Service, where labor shortages have lead to a rise in wages. Eventually enough people will join the service, and will put an end to the inflated wages. The process then repeats itself. Basically, this system results in getting plenty of workers to join the service when they're needed because the service is expanding, without having to enslave anyone. |
| Date | 13:58:26, September 16, 2007 CET | From | Libertad Party | To | Debating the Military Reform |
| Message | 2)You misinterpret the point. There are private enterprises, we just have nationalized corporations that the government starts, and that compete with the privately owned corporations, therefore driving down prives and driving up quality. Also, this allows our nation to always have a means of producing military equipment, rather than relying on foreign powers for all our armaments. 3)The definitions of slavery are: 1. the condition of a slave; bondage. 2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution. 3. a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs. 4. severe toil; drudgery. Now, the only one of those that could even apply to having citizens being drafted to a period of time in the national service is the final one. And while your strategy is effective, this one is moreso, with a consistant group of workers in the national service, the inflation on wages will be low continuously, making our economy more powerful and efficient. |
| Date | 10:22:44, September 17, 2007 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Military Reform |
| Message | 2) You talk like the tax payer won't be paying for these companies when they start to fail, as all nationalized corporations due, after years of poor quality service. You claim that Zardugal, one of the most capitalistic economies in Terra, doesn't have any defense industries. Even if that were true, I'd have no problem buying from a foreign corporation if it meant better defense for Zardugal. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 148 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 253 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe." - Edmund Burke |