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: Partial State Ownership of Defense Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Underappreciated Party of Ikradon
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: February 2104
Description[?]:
| This bill proposes some state ownership of some defense industries running alongside private suppliers. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Current: The state owns all defence industries.
Proposed: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:40:28, August 28, 2005 CET | From |  Neoretropostmodernist Party | To | Debating the Partial State Ownership of Defense Act |
| Message | We prefer allowing private defense companies to compete for government contracts in order to encourage innovation so that we have the most technologically advanced military possible. |
| Date | 17:42:48, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Partial State Ownership of Defense Act |
| Message | The FSA concurs with the NP. |
| Date | 20:55:29, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Lyika ati Isọdọtun | To | Debating the Partial State Ownership of Defense Act |
| Message | We feel that a certain degree of government action in this field is appropriate, but outright nationalization is, in our opinion, too far a degree of intervention. |
| Date | 22:20:25, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Partial State Ownership of Defense Act |
| Message | We also would oppose outright nationalization. There is the option to have both nationalized companies, to make sure that we always have some suppliers, and private companies. That seems a much better option. |
| Date | 09:41:30, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Partial State Ownership of Defense Act |
| Message | We will modify the bill accordingly. |
| Date | 10:11:18, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Partial State Ownership of Defense Act |
| Message | We will support the bill as amended. |
| Date | 14:13:41, August 30, 2005 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Partial State Ownership of Defense Act |
| Message | We'd rather completely dismantle the industry of death, but voting yes is the most compatible with our economic policy. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 397 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 113 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 89 |
| Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that. |
| Random quote: "A theory that seems to explain everything is just as good at explaining nothing"- Christopher Hitchens |