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: Reconstruction and Regeneration - Environment
Details
Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang
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: January 2105
Description[?]:
It is the role of government to manage resources within the geographic area which is host to the people who established that government in order to ensure the continuity of the evolving cultures and lifestyles of those people, within that region, through that government. Management of these resources may, in some cases, require the direct involvement of the government. In other cases, appropriate management may be for the government not to be involved at all. The obstacles barring the path to the achievement of a government's tasks of preserving the people (including their cultures), the geography those people occupy and itself, are manifold and ever changing. However, among the most common reasons for failure are: 1. Attack, invasion and destruction of part or all of the system by a foreign government and/or its people. 2. Reduction of part of its people and geography through the establishment of a separate government. 3. Destruction of the government by the people who established it in order to create a new government. 4. The mass death, disease, dysfunction, or dissolution by other means, of the people - and therefore the government. 5. Disasters which render the geography no longer tenable. Democratic government must be based on a proposition which, at the very least, provides a means to avoid or address these five issues. As the style of government in Lodamun swings from Right to Left and back again, the differing approaches to these issues are taking centre stage, undermining and eroding any and all solutions, Left or Right. Whilst maintaining ideological integrities and the right to express them, it is essential to ensure implementation of these ideologies does not, in itself, pose a threat to the preservation of the integrity of the people and the geography - these are the primary and secondary tasks. Some members of this people's assembly believe the government's tasks can be achieved only through government delivery of environmental safeguards. Others believe such government provision is, in itself, a threat as it undermines a system based on the free sale and purchase of goods and services. Some members prefer health provision to be through both state and private operation, and, while accepting that this compromises the purism of each, believe it is the most resilient solution. This debate aims to explore whether there is sufficient capacity for compromise on the provision of environmental preservation. Proposals will be added when appropriate and when they become available. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: The government provides pollution prevention guidelines, but does not enforce them.
Current: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Proposed: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 05:14:28, August 18, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Reconstruction and Regeneration - Environment |
Message | mark |
Date | 22:05:22, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reconstruction and Regeneration - Environment |
Message | On the subject of environmental protections, we would like to point out that it woudl ahve been very easy, in the last Citizens Assembly, to pass very strong ecological regulations. Instead, we only pushed things back to a median value: moderate restrictions rather than strong on pollution, for instance. When there was strrong opposition to the idea, we did not push for one-car policies or a ban on all polluting fuels. It is our belief that the current laws already represent a good compromise position. Certainly they fall short of what we would like to see in terms of environmental laws. However, in the interests of stability avoiding rapid swings of the pendulum, we have been willign to live with moderate environmental regulations. |
Date | 01:50:19, August 19, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reconstruction and Regeneration - Environment |
Message | There is a disagreement at a basic level involved in the ecological and environmental issues. We firmly hold that the government can not make the people or corporations be green in their activities. It can try to regulate for this and the end result is always the use of loopholes and escape clauses etc. and there is no real nett effect other than an increased tax bill. What it can do that is more effective is provide information and education concerning the environment to the people, the consumers. This way the green revolution will occur due to public pressure on companies rather than due to 1984 style big brother surveillance. That is our opinion concerning the effective way of becoming an eco-friendly nation. However it has been seen that GA disagrees with this and prefers to regulate and limit the possibilities. We consider that route to be counter productive. At the end we both seek the same result, it is just that the roads are divergent. We are looking to go opposite ways around the circle. We, as freedom of choice party, can not accept the hyper regulation route. The Greens do not seem to be able to accept the slower and, in our opinion, more long term effective route of manipulating public opinion. The conflict is unresolvable. |
Date | 20:32:00, August 20, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reconstruction and Regeneration - Environment |
Message | The Greens would like to do both education and regulation, but we believe there is an environmental crisis that requires urgent action in the short term. We cannot be complacent and wait for ecosystems to be hanging by a thread before public awareness rises enough -- and the ASP has blocked our efforts to accelerate awareness-raising through green charter schools, civilian antinal service, tax shifting and so on. Therefore we must agree that the conflict is irreconcileable. It is for this reason that we are forced to make common cause with the left in defence of the environment. It is our hope that the Conservative and Unionist Party will inherit the Amystian Council's mantle of conservative conservationism and support for environmental protections. With them, we believe there is space for compromise on the environment. |
Date | 14:21:49, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Reconstruction and Regeneration - Environment |
Message | This particular Bill appeals ot the New Conservative Model as it asks for some moderate regulations to be enforced by central government. Therefore, we support. |
Date | 20:43:36, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reconstruction and Regeneration - Environment |
Message | We oppose as it is not the way to create an awareness. More haste less speed GA. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||
yes |
Total Seats: 196 | |||||
no |
Total Seats: 83 | |||||
abstain | Total Seats: 21 |
Random fact: Large scale RP planning (such as wars, regional/continental conflicts, economic collapse, etc.) should be planned (as best as it can be) and should have consent of a majority of players involved. |
Random quote: "The basis of a democratic state is liberty." - Aristotle |