Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: July 5475
Next month in: 01:16:59
Server time: 18:43:00, April 26, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): hexaus19 | JourneyJak | SE33 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei

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: July 2479

Description[?]:

This comprehensive legislative agenda seeks to the Republic of Likatonia and her citizens the TRUE spirit of freedom and democracy by establishing an unfettered Free Market Capitalist system.

Thank you for your full support.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date16:51:22, October 29, 2007 CET
FromDemocratic Workers' Party and CTUL List
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageWhilst we find select articles of this bill desirable, we find others merely tolerable, and the majority entirely unpalatable. On balance we oppose, though we applaud the CWFP's progressive stance on very particular issues.

OOC: How the hell did you manage to make it this long? I guess I'm against any further extension of proposal quotas from now on then...

Date20:10:44, October 29, 2007 CET
FromKapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageDWP, actually you are NOT a Marxist. Rather, you are a SOCIALIST.

(1) Socialism is a democratic form of government in which the GOVERNMENT owns the means of production in the economy;

(2) SOVIET-communism (that which was in Russia/Soviet Union under Stalin and Lenin) is a Socialist command-economy WITHOUT political and democratic freedom (i.e. a dictator).

(3) MARXIST-communism is actually the philosophy devised by Karl Marx which advocates (a) a DEMOCRATIC form of government but also (b) a PRIVATE Free-Market economy with the exception that the means of production is owned, operated, and manged collectively by the WORKING CLASS (Proletriate) rather than the wealthy landowning and Investor Class (the burgeois).

(4) Karl Marx's philosophy generated controversy b/c he argued the case that "wage labor" was a form of SLAVERY and oppression by the Landowners. Therefore, he advocated that the workers just simply pick up arms and violently OVERTHROW the corporations and industries of the wealthy and manage them accordingly; profit generated from those companies would then be distributed equally amongst all workers.

The irony in you asserting that you are a "marxist" is that Karl Marx actually considers Socialism a STATE-version of Capitalism. He was opposed to acquistion of private property into INDIVIDUAL hands but supported the concept of "private property" in COLLECTIVE hands. In other words, PURE Marxist philosophy is more similar to the way the AMISH live and conduct their economic livelihoods than was that in the Soviet Union.

Date20:37:17, October 29, 2007 CET
FromNeue Kommunistische Liga
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOh boy, this is a long one.

We support some of the articles in this bill, mostly those related to education.

Date07:33:41, October 30, 2007 CET
FromPermissive Social Union
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOOC: AMDWP, bills of this length are exactly what we were afraid of.

Date11:17:56, October 30, 2007 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOOC: The idea of a bill like this is to force even parties that agree with a few of the CWFP agenda items to oppose them, thereby increasing the CWFP visibility on these issues and separating their agenda from everyone else.

It's an old trick, and a particularly unexciting one... because it always ends up the same way - every party can jus save their items for one ridiculously huge bill, and it becomes a matter of luck... who is lucky enough to be the person who gets the last omnibus bill of the term passed, is the person who gets the benefit of the visibility.


There are two good techniques for opposing it - either abstain (in which case it doesn't touch YOUR coherence to a set agenda, but it does hurt your visibility a bit... not so important at te moment because most of us probably want to be split along these lines)... or vote for a Constitutional Amendment that limits bills to 12 items (for example)... or limits bills to one issue (like a religious bill must be all religion related).

These things tend to play themselves out soon enough though. They pay a dividend in only the occassional election, because you have to collect so much 'quota'.

Date20:36:22, October 30, 2007 CET
FromKapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
Message
Check the legislative page: the quota limit is STILL 12 bills.

Besides, I did say that if you vote for the increased quota bills, EVERYONE will have the opportunity to utilize that strategy. That bill was voted against nearly unanimously.

Date21:34:01, October 30, 2007 CET
FromDemocratic Workers' Party and CTUL List
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOOC: Yes, the quotas are still 12, hence my wording.

I know very well what Marxism is. I know very well too what democratic socialism and Marixsm-Leninism are. Marx never advocated a private market. True, he advocated securing the means of production for the equal distribution of its wealth, but this is by no means to say that he was in favour of a capitalist economy to win the workers in one company more bread than in another. Of course, in Marxist ideology, this is the way the economy would operate in its transitional "socialist" phase, but Marx's main brainchild was the "communist" economy, whereby, yes, wage-slavery would truly be abolished through making currency redundant, and thus final and entire eradication of capital exploitation. If we are being really pedantic here, Marx believed that the state would be done away with even before the "socialist" phase, so much of this argument is irrelevant.

Above all else though, it might pay to remember that I am roleplaying. I am not a Marxist, and no, my Party is not a true or fair representation of Marxist ideals. As I am sure you are aware, however, next to none of any self-proclaimed "Marxist" political parties in modern history have been considered by more than a slim minority as "real" Marxists. I am mimicking one of these Parties as the DWP.

Date23:52:17, October 30, 2007 CET
FromDemocratic Workers' Party and CTUL List
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOut of the proposed Articles, we support a mere two, are indifferent to two, and are vehemently opposed to the forty-six remaining. We feel little option but to vote against this bill. We would encourage the CWFP to set aside our favoured Articles (2 and 35: re:national service and police force respectively) alone in a separate Bill, which would win our wholehearted support.

Date01:28:19, October 31, 2007 CET
FromKapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
Message
When I said that Marx favored a "private market," I was NOT referring to a CAPITALIST economy. Rather, Marx DESPISED the State and Government as much as Economic Libertarians do.

Nevertheless, he advocated that the WORKERS organize and unionize NOT to "negotiate for labor contracts," but to OVERTHROW their wealthy employers be "capitalist," if you will, by producing and owning the means of production THEMSELVES.

If you were playing the role of a "PACIFIST Marxist," your legislative platform would be EXACTLY the same as mine [100 % Laissez-Faire] with the EXCEPTION that you would support the law that FORCES all industries to be run, managed, and owned by Democratic Worker Councils (DWCs). In context, Karl Marx was ONLY against private property in INDIVIDUAL hands at the expense of the "species" (whole community). That is what distinguishes him from Adam Smith and Capitalism.

However, the Bolsheviek Revolution led by Lenin and Stalin MANIPULATED Marx's ideology to expand the POWER of the STATE!!!

In fact, many economists have argued that the United States is NOT a true Capitalist economy. Rather, it is a CORPORATE SOCIALIST economy. In other words, the United States dogmatically preaches in the evils of the "command economy" and the illusive "free market," when in REALITY they dictate the terms of the economy [like Stalin] but for the interests of CORPORATIONS (the rich).

Case in point: If America was really a so-called "Capitalist economy," WHY does the Federal Gov't spend billions subsidizing INEFFICIENT domestic corporate farmers when so-called "3rd World" farmers are MORE productive??? Second, why is it AGAINST the law for American citizens to buy health insurace across State and international lines??? Why in New York City (my hometown) is is AGAINST the law for Bronx consumers to purchase cable from a subscriber OUTSIDE of the Bronx and vice-versa??? Why is it AGAINST the law for private post offices in competition with the Post Office to charge prices LOWER than the Gov't monopoly's price by up to 3x???

ANSWER: With the exception of the Post Office monopoly, all of those laws were passed by Bush & Guilani-like "conservative" REPUBLICANS that restrict COMPETITION thus enabling corporations to raise prices and thereby their profits. According to a TRUE capitalist economy envisioned by Adam Smith, their would be NO poverty b/c the "invisible hand" of the Free market (competition from MILLIONS of businesses and consumers<people>) would FORCE prices to naturally fall, the QUALITY of the goods to naturally rise, and the SALARIES of workers to naturally rise.

Date06:31:28, October 31, 2007 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOOC: I am officially ignoring anything the CWFP types now. I'm bored with all this 'bill gates', 'bush' and 'guilani' stuff... and delicate encouragement isn't working.

Date07:17:35, October 31, 2007 CET
FromKapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
Message
AMSuDP, with all due respect, are you THAT irrational???

NEWSFLASH: Likatonia (like the Ninja Turtles) is NOT REAL!!! However, the POLITICS of the game is!!! Therefore, it is only LOGICAL to use REAL world examples in making an argument for REAL world political issues in this "simulated" world.

Date07:38:25, October 31, 2007 CET
FromPermissive Social Union
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOOC: No, it is completely ILLOGICAL to to use real world examples as these are not REAL issues. I'm taking a leaf out of the AMSuDP book and ignoring anything you type. You just don't get the message and I get exasperated.

Date10:09:16, October 31, 2007 CET
FromKapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
Message
Well, first and foremost, I was directing my conversation using those "real world examples" EXCLUSIVELY to the DWP.

Anyway, if I implied that the AMSuDP is "dumb," then you just proved that you are "DUMBER" for the simple fact that EVERY SINGLE article in this bill are, in fact....you guessed it(haha)....REAL issues being debated by Legislatures ALL over the planet Earth as we SPEAK. If you don't believe me, "GOOGLE" them!!!

Date21:28:24, October 31, 2007 CET
From Likaton Coalition of the Willing
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOOC:

CWFP, grow up.

If you can't be civil, and can't respect the views of others about how they play this game, you probably should just stop trying to annoy people.

If you want to have OOC political debates, by all means, do so. Just do it a) civilly, and b) clearly marked OOC. If you persists in this inability to keep the roleplay element of the game seperate from your own personal crusade to dumb down politics, you may well find that everyone ceases to engage with you.

Date21:52:14, October 31, 2007 CET
FromKapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
Message
Thanks, Immeressen for the clarification. Actually, I'm not the "immature" one but they were. However, you were the MOST mature by simply saying that if I wish to discuss real world issues, clearly mark them as "OOC."

Had I known that from the beginning, I would have done so and this argument would not have materialized. Btw, what does "OOC" technically stand for? Thanks again.

Date22:04:11, October 31, 2007 CET
From Likaton Coalition of the Willing
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOOC is Out Of Character.

IC is In Character

Use of these clearly delineates between Player conversation against Party conversation.

Within this Bill, you: Without any sort of provocation, launched an attack on the DWP; just because you want to show off what you consider to be 'higher knowledge', in a patronising and inappropriate fashion.

Many times, players have encouraged you to not use Real World examples, and you still persist. When they state that they are not going to interact, you insult them.

You type like a 14yr old myspace junkie, and you lack coherency. You are the only one resorting to insults, and you are the only one resorting to being both patronising and irrelevant.

I'm suggesting you grow up because of these factors.

Just to temper this, I am keen to see you continue, and it is always good to have active parties. Don't take these as personal attacks, but look at how you can mesh better with the players, without compromising your party style.

Date04:08:39, November 01, 2007 CET
FromKapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
Message
[OOC]

In the game of politics, it is the rule to untangle your opponents logic by any means necessary and to "draw first blood," so to speak.

I don't believe that the DWP interpreted my actions as "insulting" to his intelligence otherwise he would have said it instead of you. The only people that would use "technicalities" to untangle a person's argument (mine for instance) are those that are insecure with their own intelligence.

As for my writing style being that of a "14 yrs. old Myspace junkie," are you referring to the fact that I utilize the power of sarcastic language in my arguments and comedy??? Well, forgive me, but I am not uptight but a rather "laid back" & "down to earth" kind of guy. If you are referring to my usage of CAPS when stressing words, I am aware of that that is now frowned upon amongst the academic elites. However, the use of caps to stress logical points was actually the ***rule***. Do you recall the great works like "Common Sense" and the "Federalist Papers"? They used capital letters all of the time.

As for the real world examples, I did honestly try to respect the Convocation's rules. However, when I get "heated" and caught up in defending a real political issue with logic, I had just subconsciously "slipped into that bag," so to speak. However, instead of the LFF and co. resorting to making a "Federal case" out of such a "technicality," all they had to do in a mature fashion (like you did) was tell me to use the initials "OOC" when making references to real world examples.

Nevertheless, I will respect the rules of the convocation from now on with respect to differentiating between Particracy and Earth. Thanks for your constructive critism and I appreciate it greatly.

Date06:09:44, November 02, 2007 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the "Just Say NO".....To Economic Slavery Act
MessageOOC:

CWFP - this is a role-play. The AM SuDP are not a real party. Likatonia is not a real nation. We are all aware of these limitations... so any 'real world' evidence you think helps your argument is entirely irrelevent to debate WITHIN the Convocation. Not only that - but any good argument, should be possible in abstract.

Several people have asked you to leave your 'real world' baggage at the door. You have constantly ignored such requests. To choose to ignore your 'breaking the rules' is hardly immature. It's just a respite from an exercise in futility.

As a point of contention... if you think that in "the game of politics, it is the rule to untangle your opponents logic by any means necessary and to "draw first blood"..." then you are sadly mistaken. There can be conflict, but that isn't the sum and substance of politics. Sometimes, politics is all about agreement. Sometimes it is about making concession. Sometimes, it is about taking a hit for the greater good. Very rarely is it about purely tangling logic... that kind of politics is self-defeating in the end.

Last point - this game DOES have moderators. If you choose to throw around the kind of language you have in this 'debate' (apparently, you think I am "dumb" and the LFF player is "DUMBER". Apparently, you think me "irrational') you should be aware that moderation frowns upon attacks on players, rather than on parties. I've been civil to you, even under duress. It is not too much to expect that you should do the same.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 220

no
   

Total Seats: 344

abstain
  

Total Seats: 102

Random fact: Zardugal is a nation based on the old Byzantine Empire, with a modern twist and the Esperanto language. Zardugal is located on the continent of Majatra.
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
This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 323