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: Taking power away from a moribund rotting government
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: February 2466
Description[?]:
| We'll use all our 50 proposals (we wish there were more since there are more functions worth stripping away) to protest the do nothing useless federal government and propose moving all responsibilities to the states. The states are closer to the people and know better than the current Senate. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption is not regulated.
Current: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Proposed: Adoption policy is to be established by local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: The state does not provide child benefit.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Proposed: Child benefit policies are left to local governments.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning child labour.
Old value:: Child labour is forbidden.
Current: Child labour is allowed, but with additional regulations to those of adult labourers.
Proposed: Child labour is regulated by local governments.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Weapon concealment.
Old value:: Any legal weapon may be concealed when carried.
Current: People must first obtain a permit in order to carry concealed weapons.
Proposed: Local governments may set and enforce concealed carry laws.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Government position in respect to crossdressing policy.
Old value:: Crossdressing is allowed.
Current: The government has no policy concerning crossdressing.
Proposed: Local governments determine the legality of crossdressing.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change National, cultural and historic sites and monuments.
Old value:: The state does not undertake any action towards the protection of cultural and historical heritage.
Current: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Proposed: This matter is left up to the local governments.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Current: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are prohibited.
Article 8
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the initiation of divorces (if allowed).
Old value:: Either partner may initiate a divorce.
Current: Either partner may initiate a divorce.
Proposed: Local governments decide who can initiate a divorce.
Article 9
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may not seize private property.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The policy regarding eminent domain is left to local governments.
Article 10
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy is provided by private companies which are not subject to any special regulations.
Current: Energy is provided by nationalised companies.
Proposed: Energy provision is left to local governments.
Article 11
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers.
Current: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Proposed: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Article 12
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning farm size.
Old value:: Farm size is not regulated.
Current: Farm size is not regulated.
Proposed: Farm size regulations are determined by local governments.
Article 13
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards fireworks.
Old value:: The sale of fireworks is unregulated, anyone may buy them.
Current: The sale of fireworks is unregulated, anyone may buy them.
Proposed: Local governments determine fireworks laws.
Article 14
Proposal[?] to change Firefighting services.
Old value:: The government has no fire management policy.
Current: There is a national fire department, funded by the government.
Proposed: Fire prevention and management is left to the local governments.
Article 15
Proposal[?] to change Food safety policy.
Old value:: There are no food standards provisions.
Current: The government introduces, and actively enforces, food standards provisions.
Proposed: Local governments determine food safety standards.
Article 16
Proposal[?] to change
The government's policy regarding foreign marriages.
Old value:: All foreign marriages are recognised, regardless of domestic policy regarding marriage.
Current: Only foreign marriages that comply with domestic policy regarding marriage are recognised.
Proposed: Local governments regulate the recognition of foreign marriages.
Article 17
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: All forestry is performed by private companies.
Current: Local governments are required to operate forestry agencies, which own and manage all forest land.
Proposed: Local governments may set up forestry agencies. Where they do not, forestry is on a commercial basis.
Article 18
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning forest protection.
Old value:: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Current: Forest protection is left to local governments.
Proposed: Forest protection is left to local governments.
Article 19
Proposal[?] to change The right to gamble.
Old value:: Gambling is legal across the nation, no regulation whatsoever.
Current: Gambling is legal, but only in private homes and casinos with special licences.
Proposed: The legality of gambling is a matter of local governments.
Article 20
Proposal[?] to change Higher education institutions.
Old value:: The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide.
Current: The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide.
Proposed: The government leaves the development and funding of vocational schools and colleges up to local governments.
Article 21
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning industrial hemp.
Old value:: There are no regulations on industrial hemp.
Current: Industrial hemp regulations are left up to local governments.
Proposed: Industrial hemp regulations are left up to local governments.
Article 22
Proposal[?] to change Health and safety legislation for industry.
Old value:: There are no set health and safety regulations for industry.
Current: The government introduces and actively regulates health and safety legislation in all areas of industry.
Proposed: Health and safety laws are to be determined by local governments.
Article 23
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards the funding of libraries.
Old value:: The national government controls a vast and comprehensive system of public libraries.
Current: Funding and operation of libraries is left entirely to local governments.
Proposed: Funding and operation of libraries is left entirely to local governments.
Article 24
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions.
Current: The government only recognises civil marriages between a man and a woman.
Proposed: Civil marriages are defined by local governments.
Article 25
Proposal[?] to change The use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.
Old value:: Cannabis is legal as a sedative for patients in pain.
Current: Cannabis is legal as a sedative for patients in pain.
Proposed: The legality of medicinal cannabis is established by local governments.
Article 26
Proposal[?] to change The state's intervention in the appointment of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Current: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Proposed: The state has the right to veto the appointment of any ministers of religion.
Article 27
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning museum funding.
Old value:: The government does not fund or manage museums. This is left to the private sector.
Current: The national government maintains a system of museums nationwide.
Proposed: The government leaves funding and operation of museums to local governments.
Article 28
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government devolves park policy to local governments.
Article 29
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Current: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Proposed: The decision is left up to local governments.
Article 30
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.
Old value:: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Current: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Proposed: Public nudity laws are left to local governments.
Article 31
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning parental qualifications.
Old value:: The government does not hold qualifications for new parents.
Current: The government does not hold qualifications for new parents.
Proposed: Parental qualifications are left to local governments.
Article 32
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the use of pesticides.
Old value:: The government approves and regulates agricultural chemical use.
Current: Farmers are required to list chemicals used on their crops.
Proposed: Local governments may choose to regulate pesticides certification programs.
Article 33
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the organization of police/law enforcement
Old value:: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Current: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Proposed: The operation and funding of the police is left to local governments.
Article 34
Proposal[?] to change The government's stance on population control.
Old value:: The government does not engage in population control.
Current: The government actively promotes population growth.
Proposed: Population control is left to local governments.
Article 35
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Current: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Proposed: Hiring policies are regulated by local governments.
Article 36
Proposal[?] to change Pre-school education.
Old value:: The government maintains a system of free publically owned nursery and pre-school educational centres.
Current: The government leaves the pre-school education policy to local governments.
Proposed: The government leaves the pre-school education policy to local governments.
Article 37
Proposal[?] to change The right for a person to prostitute himself or herself.
Old value:: There is a state monopoly on prostitution.
Current: Prostitution is legal but not recognized under government employment regulation policy.
Proposed: Prostitution regulation decisions are left up to local governments.
Article 38
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: Local governments may regulate laws on public acts of affection and obscenity.
Article 39
Proposal[?] to change Funding of public transport (where applicable).
Old value:: Public transport is fully user-pays.
Current: Public transport is partially subsidised with the remainder "user-pays".
Proposed: Local governments decide upon the funding policy.
Article 40
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: No religions are taxed.
Current: Recognized religions are not taxed.
Proposed: Religious taxation policy is left to the local governments.
Article 41
Proposal[?] to change Renewable energy sources (eg. solar power, wind power).
Old value:: The government does not take any position with regards to renewable energy.
Current: The decision on renewable energy sources is left up to local governments.
Proposed: The decision on renewable energy sources is left up to local governments.
Article 42
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning racial segregation in educational institutions.
Old value:: Segregation is illegal in all educational institutions.
Current: Segregation is illegal in all educational institutions.
Proposed: Segregation policy is set by local governments.
Article 43
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, and is legal in government-owned buildings.
Current: Smoking regulations are to be determined by local governments.
Proposed: Smoking regulations are to be determined by local governments.
Article 44
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on sexual relations.
Old value:: Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
Current: Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
Proposed: Sexual relation laws are set by local governments.
Article 45
Proposal[?] to change The funding of sports clubs.
Old value:: The government does not fund sports clubs; only private ones are allowed.
Current: The government funds some sports clubs side-by-side with private ones.
Proposed: Local governments decide the funding policy of sports clubs.
Article 46
Proposal[?] to change The government policy regarding housing.
Old value:: All housing is privately-owned.
Current: Housing policy is to be determined by local governments.
Proposed: Housing policy is to be determined by local governments.
Article 47
Proposal[?] to change The teacher's right to discipline children.
Old value:: Discipline levels are set by schools.
Current: Discipline levels are set by local governments.
Proposed: Discipline levels are set by local governments.
Article 48
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on tree plantation.
Old value:: The government does not intervene with regard to the replantation of trees.
Current: Local governments may set plantation policy.
Proposed: Local governments may set plantation policy.
Article 49
Proposal[?] to change Regulation of the quality of drinking water.
Old value:: The government sets a single standard to ensure all tap water is drinkable.
Current: Local government is responsible for drinking water quality regulation.
Proposed: Local government is responsible for drinking water quality regulation.
Article 50
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of wild animals as pets.
Old value:: All wild animals may be kept as pets, without any restrictions or precautions whatsoever.
Current: This matter is left up to the local governments.
Proposed: This matter is left up to the local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:28:34, October 04, 2007 CET | From |  Christian Action | To | Debating the Taking power away from a moribund rotting government |
| Message | You shouldn't make mixed bills. if you do no party can support them. If a bill on economic, moral or child welfare policy then let their be three bills, one to each, and leave said bills in debate long enough to gain a majority if it is anything except a desperate attempt to change the public's opinions and sensationalist vote grabbing. Although the Federalists is good trick as everyone else is Unitarian and from memory, its an important issue in atleast one minor Canton. Mind you if you abandon all your principles and become a liberal party absolutely not just in recent policy, then that need not a concern, of course your former constituents would turn against you and given your communists past the Liberal votes may caution your credibility, But hey, you wouldn't be a true Stalinist if you didnt betray each and every one of your principles and supporters the moment you got into power. |
| Date | 14:47:41, October 05, 2007 CET | From | Marxist-Leninist Happiness Front | To | Debating the Taking power away from a moribund rotting government |
| Message | As for what this accomplished in terms of positioning. Given the importance is rated as tiny. Probably nothing. You also use the wrong historical analogy. After the Russian Revolution the communist ran with the slogan "all power to the parliament." After the results of the election proved inadequate they changed their slogan to "all power to the soviets" which were councils dominated by communists. Hence the birth of the Soviet Union. My intention is if one level of government can't meet the needs of the people as clearly this senate can't to transfer power down to the local levels who might be able to do something. Now what you're accusing me of would be the example of New Economic Policy where free market reforms were used to gain the confidence of small land and business owners until their utility had been depleted and were hence annhilated. Or perhaps the Spanish Civil War when the communists vigorously defended the spanish middle class in he name of national unity against right-wing fascist forces. Both scenarios more aptly describe our position in the last government where we supported compromises with our liberal allies in the name of the national good. But both were compromises where something was given back to the workers to better their position. That unfortunately is not a viable scenario now. As for overall strategy. In terms of positioning it is rated as tiny so doubtful it'll make any difference. If my intention was to shift where I stood I'd just make a large bill and vote against it. This bill is purely ideological. And perhaps a reaction to the large omnibus bills where for example in order to vote for one military proposal I liked I had to vote for a bunch of other stuff I didn't. So I made my own omnibus proposal. And everything is fine with me with in it. All power to the states. So far we are voting on very little and abstaining from most votes. And our profile has remained pretty static. We find the conspiracy theories amusing. Perhaps we should take them as viable suggestions? |
| Date | 13:00:05, October 06, 2007 CET | From | Christian Action | To | Debating the Taking power away from a moribund rotting government |
| Message | The comment you abandoning your principles was in reference to your support of the Ministers resignation. Each Canton has different attributes which are vital or unimportant, you never know. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 18 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 222 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 160 |
| Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
| Random quote: "I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all, you live in the heart of the beast." - Che Guevara |