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: National Library Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Equality Party Of Trigunia
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: November 2099
Description[?]:
| We believe that the goverment should establish and maintain a network of public libraries across the nation that will ensure the literacy of all citizens, young an old. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards the funding of libraries.
Old value:: The national government contracts with private companies to maintain a system of libraries.
Current: The national government controls a vast and comprehensive system of public libraries.
Proposed: The national government controls a vast and comprehensive system of public libraries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:15:03, August 20, 2005 CET | From |  Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | We support, a system of libraries that is free for the public use will boost educational standards in all age groups. Privately run libraries cannot be free, for the simple fact that they must make a profit. While we accept people do pay for them through taxes, it feels to people like they are free, and are so more willing to use their services. |
| Date | 17:20:46, August 20, 2005 CET | From | Capitalist Party | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | Against this, the talk that because they are paid through taxes and therefore people think it is free is stupid. People who do not use them still have to pay for them. Under our current system, only those who use them, pay for them. That makes sense and is fair. |
| Date | 22:13:02, August 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | We agree with The Capitalist Party |
| Date | 23:29:50, August 20, 2005 CET | From | People's Equality Party Of Trigunia | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | If the goverment funds a national library network, then it can ensure the qaulity, and effectiveness of a library. We must consider the ones that do use libraries, and how they are affected. We may be able to encourage increased literacy if we put libraries in the right places. I don't see how anyone can be against the increased literacy of our citizens. I don't think the people will be against higher taxes if they are used for libraries, they might even want to visit the fruits of their labor and money more. Labor should be used to enrich the lives of workers, not just a tool to gain capital. |
| Date | 04:49:19, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | "If the government funds a national library network, then it can ensure the qaulity[sic], and effectiveness of a library" So you're saying that in addition to giving the state the power to compel people to give up their hard-earned money to the government to spend on another grandiose project, it's a good idea to give them the power to determine what is a 'quality' book or how the library can operate. OOC: here are some books that the US felt were of sufficiently low 'quality' that they were banned: The Arabian Nights Aristophanes - Lysistrata Boccaccio - Decameron Chaucer - The Canterbury Tales John Cleland - Fanny Hill Defoe - Moll Flanders George Eliot - Silas Marner James Joyce - Ulysses D H Lawrence - Lady Chatterley's Lover Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Confessions Shakespeare - The Merchant of Venice Mark Twain - Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn Voltaire - Candide Walt Whitman - Leaves of Grass Of course, if you happen to live elsewhere than the US, you may find other poor quality works of literature such as The Bible, The Koran, Don Quixote, Gulliver's Travels, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, etc banned. In case you think that this was just what happened in the old days, and society has become a bit more tolerant since, remember that politicians like Gerald Allen (Rep, Alabama) and George W Bush (President, USA) are ramping for a new book-banning offensive on bad quality books written by illiterates like Tennesse Williams and Alice Walker. This is 2005. Perhaps you believe, like Bush, that homosexuality is evil and needs to be suppressed at every opportunity, the new communism, an unamerican influence warping the children (oh won't someone, PLEASE, think of the children!). This may be the kind of state you want, but Trigunia is a free country and the only way we can be sure to preserve it is to absolutely prohibit the government from exercising the sort of 'quality control' you propose. Oh, and one last thing, you say 'labor should be used to enrich the lives of workers, not just a tool to gain capital'. Every man's labor belongs to him and it is for him, not you, to decide how he spends it - if he wants to enrich his life with a book, that is his right (at least as long as the government stays away from it) or if he wants to gain capital, he can. Moreover, he, not you, is best positioned to determine how to spend the fruits of his labor on a given day. |
| Date | 05:10:18, August 21, 2005 CET | From | People's Equality Party Of Trigunia | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | First of all, what I meant by quality is the number of readable, up-to-date books availible, not the content of the books. Letting the state fund a network of libraries has nothing to do with controlling the content of those libraries. Secondly, the working man/woman votes democratically for whom is here to represent them. If you believe that the worker him/herself, not me or anyone else, is best positioned to determine how to spend the fruits of his labor on a given day, then you believe that we do need a totally democratic goverment, and a totally democratic society involving control of factories, schools, and hospitals, which are all fruits of the working man's labor. This I am entirely for, but until that happens, the working man/woman votes for whom he wants to decide the fruits of his labor( except when it comes to his workplace, of course, which is run by bosses who have not been elected by any means). In our current way of life, the working man's labor is a commodity, a commidity in which he exchanges to live by the bare minimum of what his labors are worth. We are just trying to use those labors effectively for the worker's own benefit, not the benefit of the ruling class.. |
| Date | 05:35:24, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | That MAY be what you mean by quality, but you start getting into dangerous waters when you talk about quality - there is a terrifyingly large proportion of hardcore authoritarians who have not only convinced themselves that their morality is the one true morality, but also that only they should have the right to determine what others can read and think and do. Some of these people will, from time to time, find themselves in positions of power. The only possible defense against the state is to remove as many powers as possible. All of this is simply a libertarian position, not to mention the practical fact that the state tends to be incompetent and inefficient in every task it attempts. In any event, the state proves on a daily basis that it cannot be trusted and by keeping all sorts of education establishments (schools, libraries etc) outside of state hands, choice and competition become a possibility, and the state loses its best tools of indoctrination. On the subject of fruits of one's labour, we do indeed believe we need a totally democratic government. However, even a perfectly democratic state control over factories, schools and hospitals is still state control. State control necessarily denies choice. In the system you describe, a worker would not have the right to choose how to allocate the fruits of his labours between providers of employment (factories), education (schools) or healthcare (hospitals). He is totally at the mercy of the whims of a capricious government. The reality is that only capitalism truly guarantees the right of the worker to spend his labour how he chooses. Every choice a government takes is one less choice for the worker. There is nothing wrong with the working man's labour being a commodity. IT IS A COMMODITY. That's what gives him the right to choose to whom to sell it, how to use it, how to improve it, when to work and when to rest. When to spend it and when to invest. You complain that this commoditisation means that a worker can only exchange his labour for 'bare minimum of what his labors are worth'. However, under the present system, if our worker decides that he is not being paid enough for his labour he can simply offer it to another employer. Under a socialist system, if our worker decides that he is not being paid enough for his labour - tough, there is only one employer - the state. |
| Date | 07:31:58, August 21, 2005 CET | From | People's Equality Party Of Trigunia | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | In a totally Democratic society, there really is no state, because the state IS the people. In a totally Democratic society, what the "State" decides, is what the people decide, meaning the people that the people have choice to make a library a library, a hospital a hospital, a factory a factory. There is no hierarchy in a totally democratic society, meaning that what is done is was done because the majority of people want it done. I don't see how that limits choice, or how that's 'bad' in anyway. If the few don't like it, well they have the choice to make their own factories, hospitals, and libraries, because there is no 'state' to stop them. What the problem with labor being a commodity is that he does not decide what the cost of his labor is, the boss does. What the boss wants to pay him, he gets payed. If he wants to go to another job, he'll have to deal with the next boss, he dosn't want to pay any more then the other boss. Everybody can't have the best paying jobs, and what determines the best paying jobs is what makes the most capital, capital being the object of desire for the bosses. This means that what the worker's need dosn't matter, it's what will make the most capital for the Boss that does. Under the socialist system, human need comes first, and capital as an object of property and power, does not exist. In a socialist system, the worker does not exchange his labor for a means to get by, he exchanges it so that he may benifit from his accumulated labor. Meaning that a worker does not become a doctor because it pays highly, but because it is a needed service and he benifits ultimately from it. He heals the farmer so the farmer can produce food so that the doctor can eat. SImple. |
| Date | 08:33:20, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | Firstly, I cannot accept the notion that even in a 'perfect democracy' there is no state. Even if every single minute state decision is taken by way of referendum, the decision once taken needs to be implemented and the state as a mechanical necessity is unavoidable (believe me, as a libertarian and not the greatest fan of the state, if I could see a way of doing away with it entirely, I'd be all over it). It is this representation of the state which introduces the bureaucracy and inefficiency that so frustrates we capitalists. Moreover, a 'perfect democracy' is the most insidious of repressive rules. Presumably you are familiar with the concept of 'the tryranny of the majority', perhaps best exemplified with the definition of democracy as two foxes and a hen voting on what's for dinner. This limits choice because there is ultimately one decision-maker. It may be a blending of every mind in the realm, but it is still a single decision. Capitalism works because of competition. Lots of providers, taking different paths, taking different risks, ultimately maximises the national output. This energy and dynamism can only occur when the creativity of individuals is unstifled by the monolithic decision-making of the state. I must disagree with your assertion that our hypothetical worker does not decide the cost of his labour, that this mysterious 'boss' does. Let's illustrate this by way of an example. First, we assume that the boss is the ultimate recipient of the capital (this is sometimes, but not always the case). Now I, as the boss, want to pay you, the potential worker as little as I can get away with. Since I know that no other boss will pay more than me ("he'll have to deal with the next boss, he dosn't want to pay any more then the other boss"), I will pay you zero. Obviously you want more than zero, so you'll go and work in another field entirely, or move to a socialist country or something. Now I have a problem, I have no staff because none of my staff want to work for zero. All my other fellow bosses who also want to pay zero are having the same problem. This is really bad for me - my factory (or whatever) cannot produce as I have no workers. However all my costs are still going (I have raw materials that are going off, or corroding, or going obsolete or whatever; I'm paying electricity to keep the lights in my office on, I'm paying for warehouse space, or whatever). This means that my capital is shrinking. So, I need to rethink my strategy. Assuming that my business has no ready market for labour (this doesn't make a huge amount of difference, we can rework the scenario if you think I'm pulling a fast one); and this is likely since my greedy fellow bosses and I have driven all the workers away to the socialist utopias of North Korea etc; I need to find some workers somehow. So let's say I put an ad in the paper and say, salary negotiable (since my greed has ensured that there is no longer a market rate). Now, you get the local paper delivered to your North Korean accommodation, and see that I'm now offering a negotiable rate. You decide that your labour is worth, a million TRA a year and you offer to work for that. Now, I'm losing money with my factory shut, but I'm not losing a million TRA a year, so there's no way I'm going to accept your offer. So I decline your offer and wait for other workers to apply for the vacancy. The next worker suggests working for TRA30,000/yr, and at this rate, I can run my factory, and my factory makes a profit. I'm happy with worker B because I'm getting a return on my capital. Worker B is happy because he's getting the salary he wants, you're happy because you're not working for less than you think you're worth. However, the important thing to remember is this: EVEN IF THE BOSS DOES NOT OWN THE CAPITAL, THE ENTERPRISE STILL NEEDS TO AT LEAST MAINTAIN ITS CAPITAL. That means that whoever 'owns' the capital, the capital has to exist (whether it is land or machinery or stock or any other asset) otherwise there is no enterprise. In order for the capital not to drain away to nothing, the income from production must exceed the cost of production. Unless you live in a dictatorship where you can force the public to consume a certain amount of your production at a certain price, your total income is determined by public demand (i.e., is broadly speaking out of your control). Your costs have to be less than this income in order to ensure you don't lose your capital. Therefore, in any meaningful sense, the market has defined you much you can afford to pay for your labour. Now let's look at your socialist illustration. The first danger sign is that you describe it as simple, yet the most socialist countries in RL history have had a few little, how to put it, teething troubles? So maybe it is not QUITE as simple as the illustration might suggest. You say that in socialism the worker exchanges his labour so that he may benefit from his accumulated labour, although you do not describe this transaction in any more detail. I'm not sure you have any more coherent view of how exactly this would work in practice than Lenin or Mao or Kim Il Sung. You say that a worker will go into the work that is most needed. How are you going to make people go into the work that is most needed without forcing them to work where you think they should work and denying them the choice. "a worker does not become a doctor because it pays highly, but because it is a needed service and he benifits ultimately from it. He heals the farmer so the farmer can produce food so that the doctor can eat." The process you describe sounds a little like a process that some other guy described, like this "...every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." Of course, the guy in question was Adam Smith, in his seminal work "The Wealth of Nations". Believe me, as long we're both happy to design economics along the lines Smith suggested, we're going to get along famously. |
| Date | 10:29:16, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | OK, this has outgrown the original problem somewhat. Thank you to the Liberty Party for that excellent Economics 101 class, and to the Equality Party for the outline of the communist utopia that we too hope Trigunia will eventually become, once it is ready. But, if like me, you had in fact forgotten what the bill was after reading at least 2 or 3 pages of very interesting Socialism Vs Capitalism discussion, we are, in fact, discussing Libraries, and whether they should be paid for by the state or not. Our opinion, despite some very good points from the Liberty and Capitalist parties, is still that Libraries should be free at the point of delivery, and that this will not result in the collapse of the economy. We feel that it will encourage their use if people don't feel like they're paying for them, and that it will be helpful towards the literacy of Trigunia. |
| Date | 17:57:46, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the National Library Act |
| Message | We thank the DSP for steering the debate back to the original topic. While we acknowledge that there is a potential value in libraries being free at the point of use, we must still oppose any system that puts access to information into state-hands for libertarian more than economic reasons. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 116 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 438 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 1 |
| Random fact: Make sure to check out Particracy's wiki. http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page |
| Random quote: "Socialists like to tout their confiscation and redistribution schemes as noble and caring, but we should ask if theft is ever noble or caring." - Robert Hawes |