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: Civic Dignity act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Corporatism 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: November 2108
Description[?]:
| To limit nudity to designated regions of the country nudist beaches etc. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.
Old value:: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Current: Public nudity is illegal and prosecuted as a civil offence.
Proposed: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:08:45, September 08, 2005 CET | From |  Corporatism Party | To | Debating the Civic Dignity act. |
| Message | For the dignity of our nation and to aid those textile companies that lose business when people are not required to wear clothes I propose this bill protect the children of Trigunia from perverts and indecency. |
| Date | 03:38:30, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Civic Dignity act. |
| Message | You are advocating a law requiring people to wear clothes in order to artificially keep the textile industry in business? (OOC) That's a bit 'Brave New World'y isn't it? Hey, here's an idea, let's keep food companies in business by forcing people to eat at least 3000 calories a day. We can keep car companies in business by forcing people to replace their cars every year. Why exactly, in a free country, do we need to coerce people into living according to your notions of decency? Now that you are the arbiter of what taste should be legal and what tastes should be criminalised, what sort of music should we be allowed to listen to? What books can we read? What art can we enjoy? Now that we have to wear clothes, what sort of clothes are we allowed to wear? |
| Date | 07:49:56, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Corporatism Party | To | Debating the Civic Dignity act. |
| Message | Once again as I said in the message on the previous page. As the law stands right now ALL citizens must witness nudism and some citizens im sure view nudism as discusting or disturbing to them their children or family. we must not hang out to dry the rights of some for the benefit of a few others. Unless of course your belief's are that all citizens of this nation are clones of each other and not to be afforded the liberty to not have to witness nudism if they do not wish to. That seems even more "brave new worldish" to me. Might as well change the motto to.. Trigunia. If you dont like nudity TOO DAMN BAD. We dont care your all little puppets who think and like all the same things. |
| Date | 07:52:25, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Corporatism Party | To | Debating the Civic Dignity act. |
| Message | Why exactly, in a free country, do we need to coerce people into living according to your notions of decency? ^^^^ The current law does exactly that to the citizens who may wish not to see nudists all over the place. |
| Date | 16:53:32, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Civic Dignity act. |
| Message | "That seems even more 'brave new worldish' to me". Can you explain exactly how my response was more brave new worldish, please? I think you misunderstand the concept of liberty. Liberty does not mean having the right not to be offended. If it did, surely the members of my party would have the right not to be offended by your grotesque bigotry and puritanical authoritarianism. The idea of a right not to be offended is totally unworkable, since for any activity, no matter how innocent or harmless, someone is going to be offended. Just because you are offended by things you don't like doesn't make them harmful. If they are not harmful, the state has no justification to intervene. As for your final point, "The current law does exactly that to the citizens who may wish not to see nudists all over the place", you are implying an equivalence where one does not exist. At the moment, people have the liberty to choose for themselves whether to be naked or clothed. Some people may wish not to see naked people, some people may wish not to see clothed people, but none of them suffer any actual harm from seeing naked or clothed people. No-one is coerced into acting in any particular fashion. Your proposal strips people (if you'll pardon the pun) of the liberty to make that choice. All people have been denied a choice merely to serve the aesthetic whims of a few monomaniacs. All people are coerced into ACTING in a way that is consistent with your tastes. |
| Date | 17:00:44, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Civic Dignity act. |
| Message | "Unless of course your belief's are that all citizens of this nation are clones of each other " "We dont care your[sic] all little puppets who think and like all the same things" Actually, this is the kind of world YOU are trying to make by ENFORCING consistent behaviour. YOU are trying to turn people into clones who must all behave according to YOUR tastes. WE believe that people are different, with different tastes and different interests and we protect ALL people's rights to enjoy those different tastes and different interests so long as they do not harm anyone else. We acknowledge that people have the right to be different, some people can be nude, some people can be clothed. THAT IS DIFFERENT. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 182 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 246 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 127 |
| Random fact: Particracy is set in the fictional world of Terra, which mirrors the real world of today and yet is not quite like it. |
| Random quote: "If God made man they say Sam Colt made them equal." - Unknown |