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: GJA Arms - 4.14.2562.AD
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Socialist Agenda
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: December 2562
Description[?]:
| "Why should we lay laws on the sale of arms? The military sector is provided by competing private companies, so naturally, profit is in their interest. So, they would never sell arms to other countries that pose threats? One might say that merely selling these arms makes them more money, and therefore they would do it. The fact is: they won't. If they sell arms to threats, and these threats turn on our nation, then the military companies would end up having to expend much more money and resources defending us from enemies with arms the military sold them. Unlike the government, which has virtually no liability, corporations are held accountable for every life lost, and unless there is a very good explanation that has nothing to do with the administration being the blame, they're in deep trouble. Not only is it expensive in life, money, and resources for the military corporations, but there are insurance companies hired by major industries and most neighborhood organizations charged with defending the nation. If the insurance companies might end up having to compensate for lots of damage as the resultant of a war that might be caused by a military organization that would sell arms to threats, they wouldn't hire that organization because it would not be in their financial interests. And then of course, let's suppose an organization simply makes and sells arms, but doesn't maintain a military or insurance agency? Well, just as with a military agency or insurance agency selling arms to the wrong people that could be sued in court because they would have to take the blame, this organization would have to do so as well. If a war resulted because of this organization, many powerful men would sue the pants off of this idiotic organization and everyone involved in it, and put them all behind bars. No one would take the risk to sell arms to the wrong people, because the results would be devastating if they were responsible for any problems. And without state sanction of arms sales (which would end with this bill), and especially if the government would stop censoring information anyway, and even with these two things, no organization could hide its activities on the black market. Criminals have no morals - that's why they're criminals. They will sell out, and often do, so an arms-selling organization can't hide from the public, and certainly not from our intelligence agencies. So, really, we need to eliminate this law so that we can strike away at the bureaucracy and the inefficiency that inherently comes hand-in-hand with government." -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the export of weapons to other nations.
Old value:: The government allows arms to be sold only to close allies.
Current: The government allows conventional arms to be exported freely.
Proposed: The government allows all arms to be exported freely.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribeVoting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 117 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 283 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Jelbic = "Group of cultures with an overall Central Asian/Eurasian steppe theme, using a fictional language developed specifically for Particracy". |
| Random quote: "You will win, but you will not convince. You will win, because you possess more than enough brute force, but you will not convince, because to convince means to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack, reason and right in the struggle." - Miguel de Unamuno |