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: Abstainage:ecology
Details
Submitted by[?]: Pariah Idealism
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: April 2571
Description[?]:
| Forestry and fishing, two resources that should not be over-used. We need long-term thinking not what saves us a few pennies and makes the twisted rich. Recycling- should be on industry but why waste money? Make everyone recycle to bulk up. Parks - back to what it should be Industry - can always be change to high. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: All forestry is performed by private companies.
Current: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Proposed: Local governments may set up forestry agencies. Where they do not, forestry is on a commercial basis.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning forest protection.
Old value:: The government has no policy on forest protection.
Current: Forests have strictly enforced protection. Felling is limited to fire breaks.
Proposed: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of hunting.
Old value:: Hunting and fishing is not regulated.
Current: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Proposed: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government does not have a national park system policy.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: Industrial pollution is not regulated by the government.
Current: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Proposed: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Government-sponsored recycling programs.
Old value:: There is no national policy regarding recycled garbage.
Current: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Proposed: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:46:27, May 02, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abstainage:ecology |
| Message | I don't like #5. |
| Date | 03:46:51, May 02, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abstainage:ecology |
| Message | But I'll vote yes. |
| Date | 05:01:41, May 02, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Abstainage:ecology |
| Message | As for foresting it does not make the rich richer, but rather help our citizens who live in less populated areas to make a decent income to feed there families. As for recycling what are you talking about waisting money? That option is the most money consuming of all As for the industry, that option applies to the entire industy, not just one specific part, which means that our companies will get the bill which migh run into the billions (we have a HUGE industry). Also remember that there is no global warming or pollution problem in Lodamun, so I dont see the need to regulate it. |
| Date | 08:26:18, May 03, 2008 CET | From | Pariah Idealism | To | Debating the Abstainage:ecology |
| Message | If we recycle we are putting resource and more labour into our economy. If we just pin it on industry we will be wasting money. I understand there is no pollution problem but I call this a preventative measure. Before this law was placed down a notch, everyone expected it so it wasn't an issue. As for foresting, yes, it helps some citizens make their money. But #1 just makes sure we can operate #2. Which if understood correctly, Doesn't remove jobs, but places them under different authority. |
| Date | 08:26:45, May 03, 2008 CET | From | Pariah Idealism | To | Debating the Abstainage:ecology |
| Message | I must be so bad at explaining things! |
| Date | 08:28:25, May 03, 2008 CET | From | Pariah Idealism | To | Debating the Abstainage:ecology |
| Message | Thank you LP, remember #5 is not set in stone. Laws can always be changed and this law is not vital to the function of our society. |
| Date | 13:27:49, May 03, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Abstainage:ecology |
| Message | as for#1 the current value allows us to operate too, but why do we have a need to operate there? as for #2 as I understand it if the local government decides to set up a forest agency then no commercial forestry is allowed at that place, which would mean that some of our people could lose there job. as for recycling it may create some new jobs, but it may lead to some jobs getting downsized some places, for example if a company is having a rough time, and get hit with this bill on top |
| Date | 07:42:10, May 04, 2008 CET | From | Pariah Idealism | To | Debating the Abstainage:ecology |
| Message | That is not always the case on #2 and people only have to switch from working with the commercial industry to the newly set up local one. Recycling evens its self out, helps the environment and we try to pass as many bills to support those having a rough time so families and single adults alike can withstand an income obstacle. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 74 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 50 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 26 |
| Random fact: After 3 days (72 hours) your account will be inactivated by Moderation. If you want to be reactivated you can request reactivation located here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4360 |
| Random quote: "Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that way they will taste better." - Niccolo Machiavelli |