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: Defense in a World of Unknowns
Details
Submitted by[?]: AM Radical Libertarian Party
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: March 2465
Description[?]:
| Our military needs the strength and flexibility to defend Our land against any and all agressors, singly or in concert. Therefore, we propose the following ways to strengthen our forces. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: Nuclear power plants are not permitted.
Current: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Proposed: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.
Old value:: Prisoners of war are enslaved.
Current: Prisoners of war must be treated well, according to internationally-accepted standards.
Proposed: Prisoners of war must be treated well, according to internationally-accepted standards.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:43:26, October 01, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Workers' Party and CTUL List | To | Debating the Defense in a World of Unknowns |
| Message | We have already proposed Article 3 and set it to vote in a separate Bill. We oppose the first two articles of the Bill. |
| Date | 22:25:49, October 01, 2007 CET | From | Libertà Parti | To | Debating the Defense in a World of Unknowns |
| Message | I like article 2. Remove article 1 and I'll go along with article 3. |
| Date | 22:28:49, October 01, 2007 CET | From | Libertà Parti | To | Debating the Defense in a World of Unknowns |
| Message | Bear in mind I rejected the Prisoner of War bill, so if you want me to support article 3, the only way is by removing article 1. While I support economic freedom, a two-tier system, and syndicalism (trade unionism), the defense industries are one thing we should NEVER privatize. This would only result in a system in which politicians would by stock in defense industries and then start wars to profit from it. We do NOT condone profiteers or any similar savage-like behavior. |
| Date | 22:29:32, October 01, 2007 CET | From | Libertà Parti | To | Debating the Defense in a World of Unknowns |
| Message | *in which politicians would BUY stock in... - Excuse me; typo. |
| Date | 16:14:00, October 02, 2007 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense in a World of Unknowns |
| Message | Article 1 remover, we will resubmit at a later date. |
| Date | 17:08:08, October 02, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Defense in a World of Unknowns |
| Message | We like the POW law, but can't see any wat to really support the neclear fuels proposal. Indeed, we are a little surprised to see our Libertarian friends suggesting deliberate subversion of market forces. |
| Date | 17:09:40, October 02, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Defense in a World of Unknowns |
| Message | OOC: wow... typo city. IC: We have considered, and shall support... intending to overturn the nuclear issue later. |
| Date | 18:21:07, October 02, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Workers' Party and CTUL List | To | Debating the Defense in a World of Unknowns |
| Message | Given the circumstances of the Bill, we have little option but to follow the same path as the AMSuDP. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 575 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 91 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is its inefficiency." - Eugene McCarthy |