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: Civil defence practice
Details
Submitted by[?]: Am Echad, Pays Libre
Status[?]: passed
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: January 2583
Description[?]:
| This bill calls for Beiteynu to launch a 5-day civil defence exercise that will include simulated chemical and biological attacks on the Jewish Homeland. The goal of the exercise is to check the authorities’ ability to carry out their duties in times of emergency and for preparing the home front for different scenarios, There is nothing else hidden behind it. The five-day nationwide exercise simulating air and missile attacks on cities, including by non-conventional weapons, is the biggest drill of its kind ever to be carried out in the Jewish homeland. Over the next few days, emergency sirens will be sounded across the country and schoolchildren will practice entering shelters and protected spaces in the event of chemical and biological weapons attacks on Beiteynu. Emergency services will also for the first time be broadcast on television tutorial videos explaining how to act during an attack. This is in light of Beiteynuese media reporting a rise in tension along Beiteynu’s northern border with the Pontesian Protectorates. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:25:15, April 12, 2008 CET | From | SPIDER PIG REPUBLIC | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | ooc... NA |
| Date | 22:42:00, April 12, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | "We believe that while the intentions are great, five days is too long. You see, during the exercise, people become increasingly more numbed to the "action," and this means that it becomes progressively easier towards the end for, say, Pontesi to launch an attack on our nation because our people will think it is a drill. Also, which paramilitary firms will you be commanding/training/exercising in this exercise? All of them? You do not specify." -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
| Date | 22:58:04, April 12, 2008 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | We will control All armed forces and the Christian Soldiers (the CZP militia) anyone else can sign up. |
| Date | 22:58:40, April 12, 2008 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | 5 days will be the perfect time amount for this test. |
| Date | 22:58:58, April 12, 2008 CET | From | Jewish Mothers' Union | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | We sympathise with the good intentions behind this, but feel a 5-day exercise would cause too much disruption to life in Beitenyu. |
| Date | 23:05:47, April 12, 2008 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | This has been researched. No civil defense strategies have been put in place fir a long time. This will fit into the the lives of the people perfectly. |
| Date | 23:31:17, April 12, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | [OOC] May I remind you that, as per current law, military forces are maintained by private competing private paramilitaries under the command of the government. So, "All armed forces and the Christian Soldiers" is redundant, as all armed forces currently are paramilitaries working under the command of the government, competitively contracted (the free market does it better). [IC] "We wish for the 200,000 active, standing troops of the GXH-5328 to participate in the exercise with all other forces, although we still feel five days to be too long." -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
| Date | 23:36:46, April 12, 2008 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | OOC: I do not understand what you mean. i am saying that all government troops will be involved. |
| Date | 23:38:11, April 12, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | [OOC] There are technically no government troops. All troops are paramilitary, but they are paid by the government and commanded by the government. This system of competitive subcontracting provides "more bang for the buck," so to speak. |
| Date | 23:39:38, April 12, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | [OOC] So, when I asked which paramilitaries were involved, I was asking if you'd command all recognized paramilitaries, or just specific forces? |
| Date | 23:46:34, April 12, 2008 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | OOC: i meant the national armed forces |
| Date | 23:53:12, April 12, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | [OOC] That's what I'm saying. The "national" armed forces is composed of competitively subcontracted paramilitaries under government command. The main troops are recruited, trained, maintained, and disciplined by private corporations, and we contract out to these corporations competitively, based upon whoever has the most quality per price. http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewvariables.php?nationid=51#military Now, if it were to say the private defense industries were subsidized, or that they were run side by side with public defense industries, it would be different. But, our military is privately contracted. It's actually a better system, it's just not common in the real world - mostly because the idea of capitalism is actually a relatively new and revolutionary concept that arose only ~200 years ago. |
| Date | 23:57:59, April 12, 2008 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | OOC: It was my understanding that defense industries refered to military research companies and manufacturers of goods for the military, not that this would mean the army itself was private. I think thats the consensus of what that means as well. |
| Date | 00:09:43, April 13, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | [OOC] Defense industries refers to everything. It's much like the law that we have where we competitively contract police agencies to do police work for the government. In fact, because there is the choice of either subsidizing or not subsidizing private defense industries, that could actually mean that the military is totally contracted out to private industries by the individual citizens, insurance companies, and major industries themselves, and that the government has no involvement. In fact, the ideology of anarcho-capitalism has such a system in place, as it advocates the abolition of government to be replaced by the forces of capitalism. HOWEVER, because you hold Minister of Defense, are proposing this bill, we still have a military budget, and obviously the government of the SJHB still exists, I'm going to grant the benefit of the doubt that while all military is private, the government contracts a collection of paramilitaries to fight together as one forced under the command of the government. |
| Date | 00:18:22, April 13, 2008 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | OOC: Then i will make a bill making a large big nation army under no private control. |
| Date | 23:03:05, April 13, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | [OOC] Why would you want to do that? |
| Date | 23:16:15, April 13, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | [OOC] And the armies may be private, but they're not under private control. The government, who rents out many of these armies, commands them. |
| Date | 23:25:46, April 13, 2008 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | OOC: WE need an Army to own ourselves |
| Date | 20:27:43, April 14, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | [OOC] What for? It's more expensive, lower quality, and less efficient in general. |
| Date | 04:10:59, May 27, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary Gathering of Beiteynu | To | Debating the Civil defence practice |
| Message | The true solution will be encouraging Beiteynu and Pontesia to unite under service to Our Lord, a "no" has been spoken on this for that reason. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 176 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 163 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 61 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "Popular suffrage is in itself no guarantee of freedom. People can vote themselves into slavery." - Frank Chodorov |