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: Conscription Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
Status[?]: passed
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 2098
Description[?]:
| This bill will provide in the case of wartime only, those who have completed schooling can be called into military service. Due to our low population a source of recruits is necessary for our survival. After discharge or the ending of hostilities a " military college fund" will be set up by the governmet to allow those former soldiers who wish to atttend a university to do so at no cost. If they choose not to attend a university then other monetary bonuses such as home loans, small buisness loans, and job training will be made available to the discharged civilian. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National service.
Old value:: There shall be no mandatory military or civilian national service.
Current: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve either a term in the military or a lesser paid term of civilian national service, at their option.
Proposed: All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:14:35, August 17, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | I believe without this we will hav eno means to defend ourselves against a large invasion. A strong airforce alone cannot repel by itself a joint sea and land attack. We need a large enough army for a strong defensevie purpose. This will not in any way be an agressor army. This bill is open for change as seen fit. |
| Date | 16:30:07, August 17, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | Makes sense. Hopefully we will never need to activate this bill though. |
| Date | 17:06:11, August 17, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | We would oppose this motion. As it stands this bill forcefully recruits personnel to the military, and does not take into account consciencious objection, which I believe would be a problem for many. We won't support any motion which forcefully conscripts our citizens into an imperialist army. |
| Date | 18:57:11, August 17, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | I understand that but if we ever get attacked we may need extra men (and women) to help defend our country. Consciencious objectors should be allowed to join non-combat sections of the army or work in essential industries (e.g. food and military equipment production) if conscription is ever needed to be used. |
| Date | 21:37:16, August 17, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | non-combat sections and military production would almost be 'guilty of association' so to speak. I wouldn't say that was the morally right thing to do. |
| Date | 05:22:31, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Stratocracy Party | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | You have my backing in this issue and wish to propuse that the Chanchellor should be able to call a draft even if not at war with the approval of Congress (Or whatever we have lol ) |
| Date | 14:56:05, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | I hope we never will have to use this, but it is necessary for our protection. |
| Date | 21:21:58, August 18, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | I assumed that we curretly had an army for our protection... |
| Date | 21:24:42, August 18, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | We would have preffered that there be a clause added that gives the choice of either joining the military or that of important civil duties (home defence etc), however we understand the requirement for such legislation even if we admit to having reservations. |
| Date | 22:06:32, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | We stand with the USM on this one. Whilst people may wish to rise up and defend their country against foreign occupation, we cannot support forcing pacifists and conscientious objectors to fight. We would however support this bill if it included a clause allowing people to choose non-violent ways of serving the defensive effort, as the WSS have already mentioned. |
| Date | 21:25:00, August 19, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Conscription Act. |
| Message | It would still be aiding an abetting an imperialist army, and I think that would be counter productive for pacifists. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 200 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 148 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 52 |
| Random fact: Players who deliberately attempt to present a misleading picture of the nation's current RP laws will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our very being." - Mahatma Gandhi |