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: Defense Bill of 2106
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: March 2111
Description[?]:
| This is the brand new defense Bill for our nation. |
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 national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Proposed: Defence industries are privately owned but subsidised by the state.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Military stance on homosexuality.
Old value:: Homosexuality is allowed in the military.
Current: Open homosexuality is not tolerated in the military. The military has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Proposed: Open homosexuality is not tolerated in the military. The military has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Discrimination in the military on grounds of race/religion.
Old value:: The government does not interfere with the military over who can serve in it.
Current: Any adult citizen can serve in the military, discrimination for racial or religious reasons is prohibited.
Proposed: Any adult citizen can serve in the military, discrimination for racial or religious reasons is prohibited.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Women in the military.
Old value:: Women have no place in the military.
Current: Women serve alongside men.
Proposed: Women can only serve in non-battle positions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:44:14, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | 1. We are very suspicious of state subsidies for large militarry corporations. Corporate subsidies and taxes should be based on externalities of which the market is incapable of taking account (for example, environmental damage). Production of implements of death hardly deserves subsidy. Moreover, a military equipment market has a state buying monopoly, and the state already too often serves as a buffer for overproduction. Now, if we nationalised the industry (or created a nationalised company), we could not only control our technology better, but we could also supply our military at cost price. 2. We do not see a reason to introduce discrimination into the military. Does the RiP have one We support articles 3 and 4. |
| Date | 23:25:28, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Corporate Raider Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | Oppose articles 1&2. I don't dee the change in article 3 Oppose article 4. The peace-time military has no need of women. |
| Date | 23:46:13, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | Article 3: Currently, any military recruitment officer can discriminate on racial or religious grounds. This article would make this illegal. CRP: Why should we discriminate against women who choose to join? The current ban means our military is deprived of many capable individuals simply because of their gender. |
| Date | 02:27:38, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | Who said we are discriminating? Let me ask you this! Do you want someone who is openly gay in our special forces? No I don't think so. They are tight nit as it is and if you have someone that is gay then it could cause problems. Also, training. Your in a barracks with your own peers. If you have someone that is openly gay, then people will shy away from him and not even talk to him or her. This is standard policy in other nations and it has worked for them. |
| Date | 22:45:58, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | "Do you want someone who is openly gay in our special forces? No I don't think so." Speak for yourself! "They are tight nit as it is and if you have someone that is gay then it could cause problems. Also, training. Your in a barracks with your own peers. If you have someone that is openly gay, then people will shy away from him and not even talk to him or her." Perhaps, but the same could happen if you put a devoutly religious person with a gorup of atheists or, well, any 'outsider' with a group of people with a lot more common ground, then there will be problems. |
| Date | 04:07:38, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | We support this proposal including article 4. Even though we strive for equality, it is our belief that no matter what, men would do all that they can to protect us so we'll support this measure for now. |
| Date | 21:33:17, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | May I ask all parties who support the first article why it is right to subsidise arms manufacturers but not, say, farmers*? Are weapons more vital than food*? * or whatever other industries they are so frightened of popular interference |
| Date | 22:52:49, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | The SDP would also request that the bill be voted on article by article, or at least separating the first two from the last two. We hope this will not be too much of a problem, seeing as the articles are fairly diverse in the ground covered. |
| Date | 02:47:33, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | They all deal with the defense of this nation. Because they deal with the defense of this nation councilman, is why we incorporated all of these things into one bill. As for subsidization, we are dealing with the defense of our nation. That is something totally different than a free market system. With us having control over the defense industry, and we will have some control, our troops will have standardized equipment. This is vital to our defense. |
| Date | 21:13:06, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | "They all deal with the defense of this nation." Well, yes, that's still a wide area. We don't want to stand against all articles of the bill just because others are discriminatory or suspect. "With us having control over the defense industry, and we will have some control, our troops will have standardized equipment. This is vital to our defense." Why not just have a nationalised company? That way we will have full control over patents and plans (we will be researching what we need, not the compromise models the manufacturers can sell to Valruzia and Lodamun), and we will not be sinking large quantities of cash into private hands. Subsidising arms manufacturers pays costs for their sales to other nations as well - which doesn't seem logical when we could just pay them more at purchase. |
| Date | 18:24:37, September 12, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | It is our belief that there should be no state owned industry. Therefor, we shall not alter this bill. |
| Date | 21:31:58, September 12, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | "It is our belief that there should be no state owned industry." Well, that makes it all so very nice and clear. Look: Subsidies give us no more control - in fact, less, as we've pointed out - when we could just be paying for it directly (current), or managing it directly (nationalised or mixed economy). What makes this industry exceptional enough to demand government interference by subsidy but not by nationalisation. RiP, if we proposed a bill banning euthanasia and The SDP would like to support you on some of these issues, but we also oppose other policies. We know they all come under the broad category of defence, but it's not as if corporate subsidies, anti-homosexual legislation and better womens' rights are in any way interdependant enough or coherent enough to require them to be voted on as a single package. Multiple article bills are for when the articles have virtually identical function (e.g. national television and radio) or with a good reason why they have to go together or not at all (e.g. better public services plus higher taxes to pay for them). We ask again: do you have any reason why these articles need to be voted on together? <|OOC: putting two ideologically unrelated articles in one bill and forcing other parties to contradict their own policy is dubious practice, verging on exploiting the game mechanic.|> |
| Date | 06:02:28, September 13, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | OOC: That's politics for you. :D |
| Date | 14:47:54, September 14, 2005 CET | From | Tukarali Situationist Collective | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | This is, through articles 2 and 4, a despicable bill that openly attacks the rights of women and homosexuals. We can only hope that it fails. |
| Date | 17:50:15, September 14, 2005 CET | From | Panther Power Party (T.L.A.) | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | We cannot support subsidies to arms companies or the open discrimination against women and Gay folk. BOO |
| Date | 22:21:32, September 14, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | This bill has been approved by the Tribal Council. |
| Date | 23:24:27, September 14, 2005 CET | From | 3wide.com Antiparticulates | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | You should be ashamed of yourselves. |
| Date | 07:58:05, September 15, 2005 CET | From | Tukarali Situationist Collective | To | Debating the Defense Bill of 2106 |
| Message | We can only hope that the upcoming election will break the hold of right wing parties on the tribal council. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 152 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 58 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 80 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow role-play that seems to belong to the world of fantasy, science fiction and futuristic speculation. |
| Random quote: "Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?" - George W. Bush |