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: Government Reduction Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Solenthian Monarchist 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: May 2520
Description[?]:
| OOC: Trimming the fat..... IC: We at the Solenthian Monarchist Party believe that the state intervening in the private lives of citizens is fruitless and a waste of time and money. The church should be the regulaters of people's conduct and lives, not the state. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government position in respect to crossdressing policy.
Old value:: Crossdressing is prohibited by the state.
Current: Crossdressing is prohibited by the state.
Proposed: Crossdressing is allowed.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's stance on population control.
Old value:: The government actively promotes population growth.
Current: The government does not engage in population control.
Proposed: The government does not engage in population control.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning racial segregation in educational institutions.
Old value:: Segregation is illegal in all educational institutions.
Current: Segregation is illegal in all educational institutions.
Proposed: Public educational institutions cannot be segregated, private institutions can choose to apply a policy of segregation.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:06:25, January 21, 2008 CET | From |  Republican Federalist Party | To | Debating the Government Reduction Act |
| Message | Article 1: Cross dressing in public in front of children? Would you want a room full of 5th Graders seeing their heavy-set English teacher dressed as a biker chick with leather chaps? I don't think so. This proud Republic is not nearly that free-spirited and dare I say, without regard for social evolution. If they wish to do it in the privacy of their ow homes, more power to them. Article 2: The government has nothing to do with a pro-creation policy. Wonderful idea. We'll have to entirely revamp the tax system on deductions and the likes. Furthermore, without a government provided incentive to procreate-who is our future? This is absurd. Article 3: Segregation ought be illegal, period. Everyone's blood is red, end of the story. |
| Date | 06:22:08, January 21, 2008 CET | From | Solenthian Monarchist Party | To | Debating the Government Reduction Act |
| Message | The fear of breaking the law is the only think stopping this man from wearing chaps? He has no moral obligations to society, to his church, to the children he is educating? We would hope that the children would go home and tell their parents about the man. I am sure he would not been seen near the school and community again. Self regulation. We doubt that the revamping of tax codes would cause a large disruption in the management of our tax system. Are we not already lowering both taxes and the national budget? A citizen has the right to control who is allowed on his land. If he is a bigot so be it. |
| Date | 15:35:41, January 21, 2008 CET | From | Republican Federalist Party | To | Debating the Government Reduction Act |
| Message | Laws are in place as a deterrent, my dear colleague. If we had no laws governing murder are you implying citizen action groups hunt the murderers down in mobs? We live in a Republic formed on laws, not self-regulating anarchism. If someone wants to go out and about dressed as the opposite sex it does nothing but poison our kids minds. If this is your intention, I'd suggest re-thinking it. We certainly can assume they'll go home and tell their parents and their parents can then call the law as a strange man dressed as a woman is passing out free candy. The world is a nasty place and your Utopian ideals simply are that. I notice you've no defense to your own proposal about entire lack of government policy governing pro-creation as well. Is this a sign your proposal is without merit? I also agree, if someone wants to be a bigot on his own land; let him be. However, your proposal is for privately ran schools be it charters, Christian or vocational schools to allow segregation. Again, your logic in your defense is flawed. Allowing our Republic to permit bigotry near and around children is simply wrong. |
| Date | 19:27:56, January 21, 2008 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Government Reduction Act |
| Message | Because of the segregation article, we must vote no. FIP Majority Leader Andrew Cuomo |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 32 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 328 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 65 |
| Random fact: The use of proxy servers makes it impossible to detect multiing and is therefore forbidden. Players who access Particracy through a proxy will have their accounts inactivated. |
| Random quote: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." - Confucius |