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 Information Bill Repeal Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rightist 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: June 2104
Description[?]:
| This bill will repeal the National Information Act. It is a waste of money and it isn't needed. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Radio stations.
Old value:: The government subsidises a national radio station for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised radio stations are allowed.
Current: The government subsidises a national radio station for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised radio stations are allowed.
Proposed: All radio stations are private.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Television stations.
Old value:: The government subsidises a national TV station for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised TV stations are allowed.
Current: The government subsidises a national TV station for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised TV stations are allowed.
Proposed: All television media are private.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:14:03, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Corporate Raider Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | I support this bill. These should be private, with federal regulation as to decency and public service content. |
| Date | 22:50:04, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | This is an outrage! This is the malicious destruction of a government programme for corporate benefit and political gain! No sooner have the services been re-established, and the investment made, the right ensures it is all for nought! The CRP and others are so keen of accusing government of spending without producing, well, here you have your reason: sabotage! It is no wonder government programmes are accused of being inefficient - the right destroys them before they have a chance, and consistently underfunds and mismanages those services that they cannot destroy. The right are the ones who perpetuate their own myth of government inefficiency by making government inefficient. |
| Date | 01:04:19, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | The SDP is try to tell you that we are responsible for the destruction of TV and Radio. These stations are not needed in our country. The SDP won't be happy till everything is under state control. They are to be ignored and shunned for violating our rights to free enterprise and to television free of government subsidization. Ladies and gentlemen of the tribal council, I am urging you to support this measure. It is a measure to ensure that our cable remains free of government interfearence. |
| Date | 02:13:49, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | The SDPs fears that the right is destroying Tukarali. In fact, it is only the socialists that are trying to destroy our fair country. This was only but one step in the bid to drag everything into the public realm and out of the private realm. We will not let them do this. That is why we are going to repeal this act as well as other socialist programs because they take away our rights as citizens of Tukarali and we are here to defend those rights. |
| Date | 22:24:06, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | The SDP resents the twisting of our statement. "The SDP is try to tell you that we are responsible for the destruction of TV and Radio." The SDP is not. We are trying to say that this bill will waste all the money that has been spent on setting up a national radio station. "The SDP won't be happy till everything is under state control." Not true. We won't be happy until power is removed from the hands of those who seek to manipulate it. One way of doing that is by democracy. "They are to be ignored and shunned" Ah, a true believer in free exchange of ideas and open debate! "for violating our rights to free enterprise and to television free of government subsidization." Since when has there been a right to television, let alone privately-owned television? Since when has there been a right to plutocratic media? How about a right to an unbiased media? How about a right for all points of view to be heard, rather than chosen on the basis of their agreement with the view of the person who happens to own the media corporation? "This was only but one step in the bid to drag everything into the public realm and out of the private realm." Yes. Ideally, we would have everything work for the public benefit and we would have a democracy instead of thinly-veiled plutocracy. "In fact, it is only the socialists that are trying to destroy our fair country." Why would we want to do that? If you're going to make rhetorical accusations, at least make them plausible. "they take away our rights" The provision of a single, unbiased radio station and a single, unbiased television channel is not taking away anybody's rights. Nor is it contributing to the destruction of this country. This bill will ensure that the media is entirely in the hands of the rich, on whom there exists no requirement to provide unbiased reporting. Since the political interests of those rich enough to own parts of the media do not tend to be very diverse, it is necessary for a less one-sided exchange of ideas that we maintain these stations. Remember, they're not government biased, they're required by law to be independent. Ladies and gentlemen of the Tribal Council, I am urging you to oppose this measure. It is a measure to ensure that at least some of our media remains free of corporate dictatorship. |
| Date | 23:30:33, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | SDP is once again spreading lies and is backpedaling away from their true positions. They don't want you to watch whatever you want to watch. They want a government runned station for both TV and Radio and that is highly unacceptable. They also admitted that they want everything to be state owned. Ladies and gentlemen, Help us prevent them from taking over everything. A nation that is free from government control of the economy is better off than those that have industries that are state owned. Help us defeat this by voting for this measure. |
| Date | 21:38:55, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | "SDP is once again spreading lies" An accusation of lying is a matter we take very seriously. Please ether provide direct quotes and evidence of falsehood, or apologise. "and is backpedaling away from their true positions" No, we're being entirely open: "They also admitted that they want everything to be state owned." So long as the state is a free democracy, then state ownership is the way forward. "They don't want you to watch whatever you want to watch." Oh do we? Well thank you for correcting us, and here was us thinking we were offering the public an opportunity to watch something other than just what a few select individuals who happen to control the media believe in. "that is highly unacceptable." Actually, we want a government-funded station, which is an important distinction. We're still waiting for a reason. Other than the vague assertions "It is a waste of money and it isn't needed." which have been soundly dealt with. The RiP has consistently failed to address any of the arguments brought by the SDP to the Tribal Council, responding only with baseless assertions and accusations which clearly contradict fact. |
| Date | 22:12:45, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | Ladies and gentlemen, What the SDP doesn't realize is that you cannot have everything state owned and expect to be labeled as a free democracy. It isn't the way forward but a way to full economic disaster. We do not want to go through that again. If everything is state owned, it doesn't matter if we are a democracy or not. We will not be considered a free nation and that is what we are right now, free. If we let them continue with just 1station on both TV and Radio, they will push and push till the have everything on TV be runned by the state. This goes towards industry too. We have just approved the Industry Privatization bill to get the state back out of industry. Now we are working to eliminate it in our media. By overturning the National Information Bill, we will eliminate yet one more socialist program. Socialism doesn't work my friends. The voters know this and that is why the 2 times the socialists have won the election, they lose the next election. Doesn't this tell you something? They don't trust socialism and neither do we. In conclusion, I am urging you to approve this bill. Only together can we defeat the socialists. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. |
| Date | 17:15:56, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | I would like to ask the SDP how they can equate a free society with state owned businesses. I don't know about the rest of you, but to me, that is a contradiction in terms. If things are state owned then people do not have the freedom to start new businesses in industries that are state owned. This means that we no longer have a free economy. Without a free economy, we cannot be considered a free society. We will not see economic growth and unemployment will go even higher than it is now. In regards to this bill, overturning what the socialists put upon us is only a stepping stone to full control over TV and Radio stations. We will not allow that. That is why we, as free people, have decided to make this motion to overturn the subsidization of both Radio and TV station. We feel that this is nothing more than a power grab by the SDP to have the media be state owned. By having a subsidized TV and Radio, taxpayer tukars are being wasted. I know the SDP will counter this by saying that by eliminating this, we would've wasted Taxpayer tukars. This isn't accurate. We will be saving our people millions of Tukars with the elimination of subsidizing tv and radio stations. Which is more important? Saving Tukars or wasting Tukars on something that isn't necessary. |
| Date | 00:00:19, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | We shall deal with parallel points together. "What the SDP doesn't realize is that you cannot have everything state owned and expect to be labeled as a free democracy." Well, that's just the problem. No matter how free a democracy is, if there's a hint of socialism, every right wing party and every big media corporation will indeed *label* it totalitarian. The SDP asks that the Tribal Council look beyond mere labelling, look beyond the spin and prejudice fed to them by the biased mainstream media, look beyond the simplifications and erroneous associations that some members would have you believe, and see the realities. "I don't know about the rest of you, but to me, that is a contradiction in terms." Indeed. That is because your idea of the terms is, in fact, a misconception (which, by the way, is probably reinforced daily by the corporate media). We shall deal with parallel points together. Firstly, on the nature of freedom within a planned economy: "What the SDP doesn't realize is that you cannot have everything state owned and expect to be labeled as a free democracy." Well, that's just the problem. No matter how free a democracy is, if there's a hint of socialism, every right wing party and every big media corporation will indeed *label* it totalitarian. The SDP asks that the Tribal Council look beyond mere labelling, look beyond the spin and prejudice fed to them by the biased mainstream media, look beyond the simplifications and erroneous associations that some members would have you believe, and see the realities. "I don't know about the rest of you, but to me, that is a contradiction in terms." Indeed. That is because your idea of the terms is, in fact, a misconception (which, by the way, is probably reinforced daily by the corporate media). Both parties fail to see that a planned economy need not imply that the normal rules of monopoly apply. In a private market, whenever there is a monopoly (or indeed any concentration of power), there is a danger of the monopoly being abused for private gain - and there is nothing which can prevent this. Now, in a planned economy, the government legally the owner, and therefore technically has a monopoly. However... Firstly: since the state is and must remain public property, and is therefore answerable to the public, the good of the state is the good of the people, and therefore there is no such issue. Secondly, a theoretical monopoly does not mean that in practice there will only be one choice of service. Nationalised industries (particularly media) can be organised in ways very similar to the existing media - independantly managed and run stations, for example. There will be some differences: collaboration and co-operation will be possible, and while there will be constructive competition in terms of appealing to different niches, destructive competition, such as withholding of useful information for no reason other than to gain a monopoly on its use. Hopefully you will have more of an idea of how a well-run nationalised industry works. Now, in terms of freedom, let's make this clear: almost no-one in Tukarali is free to set up their own television station. In order to set up your own TV channel, you need to 'qualify' by having somehow acquired vast amounts of money. We are talking about the sorts of sums which no-one could earn in a lifetime (please note the distinction we make between earning and acquiring - the former requires that the money is acquired in return for a commensurate amount of effort put into society). In most entirely state-run industries, it would certainly be bossible to set up a 'company' if you have the credentials as a manager - it's easier to imagine with a newspaper, because it's possible to have many more newspapers than television channels. Because the creation of a new television channel is a major undertaking, you'd obviously need some hefty credentials, but the same principle applies. No, you wouldn't be able to set up your 'own' television company, but there is no need to be able to own hundreds of cameras, sets, television masts, and so forth. As an entrepreneur, you run the company from startup and you are paid for you work - more so if you do a particularly good job. On questions of freedom, you must always ask yourself 'whose freedom to do what?', and then ask 'whose responsibility to do what?', because you may find that in practice, some people people don't always have the freedoms you expect, while others take liberties and do what you don't expect of them. At the moment, every television station is owned by one person or another with a great deal of money - that's just how the system works in a market economy. Hopefully, though, you can see how these corporations might be somewhat biased in their outlook. The SDP strongly supports a law dating back to the first decade in Tukaralian democracy stating that all government employees must promise political neutrality. Any publically owned media organisation will be required by law to be politically neutral. There can be no 'SDP power grab', since, as stated in the previous bill, the media is to be run not by the cabinet, but is to be an independant organisation. Now, I don't know about you, but any industry that's responsible to the people and subject to an elected body sounds a far more free and democratic than an industry responsible for generating profit and serving the interests of tiny group of rich investors, and subject to the decisions of the people who happen to have the biggest slice of the pie. Secondly, on the economic aspects of a planned economy: "This means that we no longer have a free economy.... We will not see economic growth and unemployment will go even higher than it is now." Well, what do you mean by a free economy? If you just mean a capitalist economy, then you are correct, we won't be in a capitalist economy. If you mean a flexible economy, then that is incorrect. A planned economy can be as flexible as you want, and the government can react intelligently and directly to solve economic problems as or even before they arise - compare this to a market economy, wherein problems are solved only when there is profit in the solution. Unemployment can be significantly reduced in a planned economy by investment in public services, or retraining. A planned economy can look at the country's resources and its problems and match the two together to put the maximum of the former to good use and so solve the latter. A market can only react to what's in front of it, and will never react unless someone with money can make more money out of it. Thirdly, on the specifics: You need not support the arguments for a completely planned economy to oppose this bill. Voting for this bill doesn't mean you can't vote against any bill that completely nationalises any industry. We thank the RiP for acknowledging that a point has been made, though perhaps this time, they will do somethig other than assert that the contrary is the case. We shall now explain our case more fully, in case it is not clear: Financially, the bulk of the money has been spent, and this bill will not make that money magically reappear. Not to then use the investment would mean that the investment does not return any benefit, which constitutes a waste.The RiP has asserted that retaining the services would be a waste of money. This assertion hangs on the assumption that it 'isn't necessary' (for if it is necessary, it is clearly a good use of public money). For this assumption to be fact, we have to agree that either 'a source of unbiased media is unnecessary' or that 'we already have an unbiased media', or else that 'this will not provide a source of unbiased media'. We have shown the latter two to be false above. We can only appeal to the RiP's sense of fairness in asking them to respect the value of an unbiased media. Finally, on a certain accusation: The RiP has accused the SDP of lying, to which we object in the strongest terms. The RiP has now refused to give any explanation of what the SDP is supposed to have lied about, let alone any proof that anything the SDP has said is, in fact, untrue. Nor have they retractecd their claim, nor have they apologised for their remarks. |
| Date | 02:21:43, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker! As the represenative of the Patriot Party here in the Tribal Council, I am here by calling the question in regards to the media bill. |
| Date | 03:17:01, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the National Information Bill Repeal Act |
| Message | The Tribal Council has approved this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 229 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 69 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 1 |
| Random fact: Character names must appear plausible and should consist of at least a first name and a surname. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented |
| Random quote: "The goal of life is living in agreement with nature." Zeno (335 BC - 264 BC), from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers |