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.
Notice: Undefined index: EXECUTIVE_LEADER in
/var/www/vhosts/particracy.net/subdomains/classic/httpdocs/viewbill.php on line
234
Bill: Seizure of the Water
Details
Submitted by[?]: removed
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2040
Description[?]:
| In order to prevent privitization of our nations water supply, it should now be controlled by the government, who will ensure that all citizens of the Kundrati Union are entitled to water. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Market Party | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | Regardless of whether or not the water is controlled by the government or the private sector, the worst thing you can do is make it free. That is just going to encourage excessive use and therefore increase the risk of a shortage. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | Unless of course it is regulated by the government. A Private sector company will sell it based on demand, and such may overtake their supply. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | @UP: the idea is great , every human being should have the right to have access to water. But if you make it free it will make the citizens simply use the water like there is no tomorrow. Why not change the rezolution to something like: The government should provide each of its citizens with acces to water"? |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | Okay,then we shall support the rezolution.
|
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Market Party | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | I still oppose this. Why not just regulate the private market in order to ensure that every citizen has access to water? There is no need to nationalize the water supply in order to accomplish this. Furthermore, how much water is every citizen entitled to? Is this entitlement free? Is there a fixed price? Does the price fluxuate with market demands? Does the entitlement only come into affect when a citizen can't afford water? How do you decide when an individual can't afford water? There are far too many questions. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | "Why not just regulate the private market in order to ensure that every citizen has access to water?" You would want a company that has as it main objective profit to be responsable for our water? We cannot take this risk. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | "Furthermore, how much water is every citizen entitled to?" As much as he/she needs and can pay. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | "Is there a fixed price?" Don't know, it may be. Or it could be something like the more you use the higher the price. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | "Does the price fluxuate with market demands?" No. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | "How do you decide when an individual can't afford water?" There is what it is called the minimum garanteed earnings per person. If the family reaches this level it is entitled to free water. The quantity is limited to let's say 60% of the average family's consumption. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Market Party | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | Fixed prices result in shortages and linferior quality. This has been proven time and time again. The government doesn't have any idea what it is doing with this bill. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | "Fixed prices result in shortages and linferior quality" How? Why? Prove it! |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | In G.B after the railways were privatized the result was: increased prices and reduced costs of maintenance which resulted in an increase of accidents and loss of lives.
Never let corporations rule over key sectors of the economy because they will sacrifice everything for profit. Also if the key sectors of the economy are in the hands of corporations the state will have to kneel before their demands.
|
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | Inferior quality of Water? And besides, since when does a Free Market Party want the government to regulate private industry in the control of profits? I thought such a capitalist bunch would be for lassaiz faire style government procedures. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Market Party | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | "How? Why? Prove it!" I'm not going to bother proving it. If you have ever studied economics then you have been shown the reason why. I am sure you have studied the subject, and you have chosen to ignore the facts. If this isn't the case, then I will give you an economics lesson. Otherwise I will just let you go on thinking what you like. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Market Party | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | "And besides, since when does a Free Market Party want the government to regulate private industry in the control of profits?" We are not opposed to basic standards of quality for drinking water. This won't interfere in the market except in areas where the private water companys are distributing polluted or contaminated water without the communities knowledge. We consider this fraud, as nobody believes they are contracting to buy water that is harmful to their health. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | “I'm not going to bother proving it. If you have ever studied economics then you have been shown the reason why.”
It’s because I have studied economics I can tell you that there is no such proof. I just gave you a counter example but there are tons. The is a difference between economics and math and you cannot say something like that.
|
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | “I am sure you have studied the subject, and you have chosen to ignore the facts. If this isn't the case, then I will give you an economics lesson.”
I may have gotten it wrong but I sense o tone of superiority coming from your side. Which is not nice to say the least. If you are great , as I’m sure you think you are, then you should be able to explain and convince the “uneducated”. Statements like:” I don’t have to prove it because I know so” are not going to convince people. And the reason this game has these debate is for people like to share some of your knowledge.
|
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Market Party | To | Debating the Seizure of the Water | | Message | I should have said fixed prices cause either shortages or surpluses. Since we are dealing with a fixed water supply (or so I assume), we don’t have to worry about a surplus of water, so I won’t go into that scenario. I’ll also note that this bill is a vacuous piece of ideology with no practical component that can be put into effect, so I must infer from the debate rather than from the bill what the actual intended result of this legislation is. It seems that the intended effect is a price floor below market value (otherwise you wouldn’t complain about profits), and free water for those who can’t afford it. At a price lower than the market value you can be sure that more water will be consumed. The fact that we are dealing with a fixed water supply (which is my assumption), means that the water will run out sooner under this system. Also, the water division of the government will act very similar to a private water supplier. This is because the water is not being rationed out to citizens; it is simply under the management of a different owner (a bureaucratic division of the government). This owner isn’t going to want to sell more water at lower prices because of 1) the political pressures that would lead the water division to avoid depleting its water supply faster than what would happen under a free market 2) the potential losses that may result from selling a large volume below market prices (even government managers don’t like to be though of as inefficient) and 3) the large costs that come with increasing the access to water and the methods of distribution of water that come with the new demand at the lower prices would require that the water division ask for increased funding, even more funding than was required under the free market. All this would lead the water division to cut back in some area. Costs may be cut by not building the new infrastructure that is needed to meet the extra demand at the new price (a shortage), or costs relating to servicing costumers or insuring the quality of the product may be cut (decreasing quality). There are other issues that I could discuss as well, but this is a good start on the subject. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 27 |
| no | Total Seats: 110 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In your Message Centre there is a really useful feature which allows you to subscribe to all of the bill debates in your nation. If you use that, then the "Watched Discussions" section will show you every time a new message has been posted on a bill. You can also subscribe to other pages you want to follow, such as your nation message-board, party organisations or bills outside your nation which you are interested in. |
| Random quote: "For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible; which is one of those disgraceful things which a prince must guard against." -
Niccolo Machiavelli |