Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5461
Next month in: 00:46:25
Server time: 07:13:34, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Space Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Progressive Conservative 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: March 2115

Description[?]:

WE should be at the forefront of space exploration.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date02:28:56, September 19, 2005 CET
From Kanjoran People's Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageBut why do we need our own space agency? We could just be a hot spot for private companies. We can be at the forefront of automobiles manufacturing without having our own government factories.

Date14:35:12, September 19, 2005 CET
From Secular Humanist Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageI'd rather have a state-owned monopoly on this, but the proposed bill is good enough for me to support it.

Date20:36:24, September 19, 2005 CET
From Populist Liberal Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageWe believe current law is the best, as we wish to avoid government expenditures in this area in order to use the money where it can better help the people.

Date01:23:06, September 20, 2005 CET
From Kanjoran People's Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageOnce again, we don't need to be in the space exploration business anyway. What use is it to us until people start paying for space vacations and colonizing the moon? Even then the government shouldn't be involved because that would be much too uncapitalist and wouldn't be worth it even then. I repeat, there is no logical concern for the government to be exploring space when the private sector is doing it already.

Date04:24:32, September 20, 2005 CET
From Progressive Conservative Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageFor the rightists: consider the military potential.

Date04:30:41, September 20, 2005 CET
From Kanjoran People's Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageOh, ok. The military has the capabilities to launch satelites into space, or it could if it wanted to. They don't need a space agency for this. Or am I wrong about this.

Date06:15:00, September 20, 2005 CET
From Populist Liberal Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageWe believe the military can find ways on its own to launch spy satellites. We believe nations without a major space program have such satellites.

As far as space based weapons, we don't see a good cost/benefit ratio in them. Since there is no anti-ballistic-missile treaty on Terra, it would be cheaper and more effective to build land based weapons to intercept incoming nuclear missiles.

We aren't exactly a rightist party, although we tend to be on military matters, so we presume we are one of those you were speaking to.

Date00:53:56, September 21, 2005 CET
From Kanjoran People's Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageExactly, militaries and intelligence agencies can launch their own satellites. And if they want to launch a space-based weapon they can contract with a company under some covert operation.

Date02:00:56, September 22, 2005 CET
From Kanjoran Imperial Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageI agree with the SHP. We need a major national space agency. Although i love those private companies, a nation's pride is based largely on its technological achievements.

Date02:52:00, September 22, 2005 CET
From Kanjoran People's Party
ToDebating the Space Act
MessageWhy can't our private space exploration companies attain these technological achievments? They are Kanjoran after all. Besides, I think these companies would be more successful than a government bureacracy.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 188

no
   

Total Seats: 252

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation.

    Random quote: "[In the West] unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for an official ban." - George Orwell

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 71