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: No Govt Involvement in Nature Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Freedom 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: June 2116
Description[?]:
| Currently the government spends a lot of money on maintaining national parks and marine protected areas. The Freedom Party does not feel that the Government has to do this and would prefer that the Government has no policy with regards to national parks However we are willing to compromise on zones being set up and the government not funding them |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Current: The government devolves park policy to local governments.
Proposed: The government designates ecological preservation zones but does not fund their oversight.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:52:04, September 24, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the No Govt Involvement in Nature Act |
| Message | "Nature is local and it is up to local governments to decide if they want to protect certain areas." Bullshit, nature is nationwide, if not worldwide! We must have a consistent national policy! |
| Date | 15:10:16, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the No Govt Involvement in Nature Act |
| Message | Local governments are the closest to nature areas and know more about them Therefore they are the ones who are best able to decide on its policy |
| Date | 16:46:07, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the No Govt Involvement in Nature Act |
| Message | Nay. We can have both state run parks and national reserves. A national system is needed to keep a handle upon inter-state and inter-county parks, along with the money and resources to properly take care of them and protect them for the next generation of Rutanians. |
| Date | 22:54:23, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the No Govt Involvement in Nature Act |
| Message | Against. I dont want parks AT ALL. The "local government" options dont reduce interferance, they just push the decision onto someone else, which is more than a little pointless. We would support the "protected but not maintained zones" option. |
| Date | 23:57:53, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the No Govt Involvement in Nature Act |
| Message | Much better =) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 236 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 363 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy has 464 player slots. |
| Random quote: "It is never too late to give up our prejudices." - Henry David Thoreau |