Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: July 5472
Next month in: 01:21:01
Server time: 18:38:58, April 20, 2024 CET
Currently online (4): Autokrator30 | hyraemous | Neo_kami | Tayes_Gad | 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: Progressive Bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: Social Capitalist Party

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 2508

Description[?]:

We do not believe that children should be exposed to adult material. This will have an adverse effect on the underlying morals of our society in the future.

Competition will increase efficiency.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date13:21:52, December 22, 2007 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Progressive Bill
MessageNudity is not a problem and we should not be squeamish about allowing our children to see nudity, it causes no harm.
In regards article 2, it has been shown time and time again that allowing private TOC's to operate rail services harms those services provided. Why would a company operate a branch line that makes a loss when it can operate a highspeed long distance service at a profit? Moreover, this bill does nothing to introduce regulations on those operations, nor does it show how those TOC's are supposed to compete. To use a hypothetical example:
Two companies operate services between Astoria City to New Krupskya. The most profitable service will depart from Astoria City at 6:15, which company gets to operate that service? There is only a single track so only one company can operate that service, which does? Does the company that does not operate the service get compensation? Who pays for it? Railways are not roads, you can't run a trains one after another with no gaps between them. They are heavy, fast things that require large breaking distances. Our HSDT's require over a mile to stop from their maximum speed and that is from an efficient well maintained train, we cannot guarantee such maintenance to be continued by the private companies so gaps would have to be increased between services to guarantee public safety reducing service slots and thusly competition.
Who owns the infrastructure, the rolling stock, etc? This bill has not been thought through nor has it made any attempt at providing evidence how such a system would operate. The only way Private companies can make rail systems work is by owning majority shares in routes and by doing so it removes the incentives with which the SCP is trying to expand services, that of competition. Passenger rail services do not make profits without massive cuts to service quantity and quality and to expect anything else is just foolhardy.

Date16:01:24, December 22, 2007 CET
FromCommunist Party of Hobrazia
ToDebating the Progressive Bill
MessageWe cannot agree to this bill as it is proposing to take Hobrazia's rail service away from the people and hand it to big buiness capitalists who will only exploit the people for profit and gain.

Date14:17:05, December 28, 2007 CET
FromHobrazian Peoples Party
ToDebating the Progressive Bill
MessageWe could have supported article 1 but since you added the second article we must vote no on this one.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 137

no
     

Total Seats: 263

abstain
 

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: Players who deliberately attempt to present a misleading picture of the nation's current RP laws will be subject to sanction.

Random quote: "You can only progress when you think big, you can only move forward when you look further." - Arria Ivmarus, former Selucian politician

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 59