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: Private Armaments Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Socialist Movement
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: August 2109
Description[?]:
| We believe that it is dangerous and counter productive to have private arms companies and traders running alongside government ones. These businesses make their capitalist greed by buying into desperation and conflict. The tools they sell will be used to kill or seriously injure in many cases: and the worrying factor is that these companies don't seem to care, so long as they get money. The United Socialist Movement is firmly against such blood for profit style promotions, and urge the Hobrazian parliament to ban the private defense trade, for the common good. AMENDMENT: The arms trade, since it will mostly be providing for Hobrazia's army, is recognised as a strategic industry, and therefor is owned entirely by the State. Therefore this would be a part of the National Industry Legislation. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Current: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Proposed: The state owns all defence industries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:55:59, September 08, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Private Armaments Act |
| Message | We'll support this. Perhaps you should explicitly call arms manufacture a "strategic industry" so that this legislation is also covered by this older bill (http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=8224) PS: Small typo in the final snetence "ofr" instead of "for" |
| Date | 23:20:00, September 08, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Private Armaments Act |
| Message | A resounding yes. |
| Date | 00:58:26, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Private Armaments Act |
| Message | Hear hear. |
| Date | 14:21:12, September 09, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Private Armaments Act |
| Message | We feel the current law is acceptable as is. There is no requirement to nationalise the whole of the arms industry as it provides the Government with choice in its selection of manufacturer as well as allowing the National Arms Industry to reduce costs by using these other manufacturers as parts supplyers and to increase production capacity by providing contracts to produce the National Industry units. We would also point out that due to current legislation no arms may be sold to any other Country or group without permission by the Government as all sales are approved on a case by case basis. |
| Date | 17:15:32, September 09, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Private Armaments Act |
| Message | Surely choice would not come into the question - the government makes the arms for the military, and as such would not buy other companies weapons due to it being a waste of money, and detrimental to a government industy. I believe that 'choice' doesn't come into it when the goods used are purely to do damage. |
| Date | 17:19:02, September 09, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Private Armaments Act |
| Message | Good point United Blobs, i've added it as ana amendment. |
| Date | 18:10:31, September 09, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Private Armaments Act |
| Message | I refer to the bill currently in operation: "Should the State Industries be unable to cope with, or designs be inadequate to serve, then contracts can be levied with Private Defence Contractors in order to provide capacity, or improved design specifics, required for Armed Service operations." Technological advancement through the use of Private Contractors which might otherwise go unnoticed operating a purely State run industry could be detrimental to the effectiveness of the Hobrazian Armed Services, this current system allows production, where possible, to be kept "in house" whilst also providing incentives to continue to push the boundaries of technology in order to provide an efficient, cost effective Armed Force for this Country. |
| Date | 18:43:03, September 09, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Private Armaments Act |
| Message | Again, the most important point here is that private arms contractors are making their money from blood spilled on the battlefield. Morally, I believe this to be questionable. |
| Date | 21:19:39, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Left Communist Party | To | Debating the Private Armaments Act |
| Message | We believe that state ownership of main services is always the better choice, so we will back this proposal. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 315 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 50 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 35 |
| Random fact: There is a phpBB forum dedicated to Particracy. Please click the Forum link in the top game menu. Additions to the game, suggestions and discussion is held there so get involved. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Economic advance is not the same thing as human progress." - John Clapham |