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: Fire Department Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Traditional 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: July 2610
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Firefighting services.
Old value:: There is a national fire department, funded by the government.
Current: There is a national fire department, funded by the government.
Proposed: Fire prevention and management is left to the local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:23:31, July 21, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | It's a good job that fires never spread beyond local governmental spans of control, then. Oh wait. |
| Date | 20:03:53, July 22, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | Did I say it was illegal for another province to help stop the same fire if it goes into their province? You really need to learn something. |
| Date | 21:45:30, July 22, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | The TCP miss the point. Let us conjure up a little example. In Sorbanika, let us assume there are four counties that do not wish to even bother with local fire departments. Instead - they'll let individual citizens carry the burden of fire-fighting. With no central organisation,a nd no central regulation - this situation would be entirely within the realms of possibility, and there'd be no real mechanism for objection. The problem arises, then - when a fire occurs that local citizens can't fight. Individuals - even local agencies - lack the sheer mobilisable resources. So -the fire spreads. And then - what COULD have been dealt with at the local level by a NATIONAL organisation... becomes a natural disaster, sweeping across Likatonia. Or - what about the fifth county surrounded by those other four, that DOES maintain a local fire department... and that is always having to fix fires in those four localities? It becomes an abusive system. They can't even opt-out, because if no-one fights those fires, fire spreads. Emergency managament NEEDS to be national, and centrally managed. You can have local operators, but local governence is just a bad idea. |
| Date | 00:24:16, July 23, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | If the people of a certian county want to make individuals stop fires, they can go ahead, its THEIR business. And in most cases that WOULD NOT be the case, but since you persist to make meaningless points. I will explain. Do you really think that if a fire gets so out of hand that the people won't come up with a way to stop it? Not that many fires like that ever occur. But if one did, the people would find a way to stop if from destroying them. Or do you just think people will let fires burn down them and their homes? Its called freedom my friend. Do you really think people will choose to have no fire department? And if they do, then its their problem, not the countries problem, its whoever or wherever the fire spreads to's problem. Because they didn't want a fire department. |
| Date | 01:52:53, July 23, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | Not that many fires like that occur? No - because we have a comprehensive fire service, who do their best to make sure fires don't get out-of-control. The nation doesn't have infinite resources, by any stretch... but it is far more well resourced than any local arrangement. As a consequence of that approach, when there are huge wildfire disasters, they are a rarity. Do we think people would just let fire burn down them and their homes? That's what happens with out of control wildfires, friends. You say it's not the country's problem. You say people should have the 'freedom' to do things like that. We say - as a nation, as a GOVERNMENT - WE have a responsibility to make sure things like that don't happen. We have the responsibility to make sure fires are stopped as locally as possible, before it becomes national emergency. |
| Date | 03:35:03, July 23, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | What do you mean a "national emergency". Thats simply a label you are putting on it to make it seem more dramatic. Its only a "national emergency", as you so elegently put it, to the areas that don't have fire departments. And the people there CHOSE to not have fire departments. It was THEIR choice so its THEIR problem. Stop forcing you protection on the people if they DON'T WANT IT. |
| Date | 04:05:46, July 23, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | What do you mean a "national emergency". Thats simply a label you are putting on it to make it seem more dramatic. Its only a "national emergency", as you so elegently put it, to the areas that don't have fire departments. And the people there CHOSE to not have fire departments. It was THEIR choice so its THEIR problem. Stop forcing you protection on the people if they DON'T WANT IT. |
| Date | 06:42:08, July 23, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | By 'national emergency', we are pointing out that fires are not limited in their scope to the jurisdictions of local services. National emergencies (in fires, at least) always start as local emergencies. If they get to escalate beyond that - depends on a number of factors... weather, recent climate, flammable material... and the local response. We are not confusing national and local emergencies here - we are pointing out that they are intrinsically intimate, and - most importantly - CAUSATIVELY, inter-related. |
| Date | 00:02:24, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | If the people of an area want to protect themselves against fires. (I don't see why they woudn't) they will have a fire department in their area to protect THEIR AREA. If the people of a different area don't want one, then don't have to have one, the only place its going to hurt is THEIR AREA. I don't know why you can't understand this, its common sense. |
| Date | 00:04:14, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | And maybe the reason they don't want a fire department is their area is because they KNOW that THEIR AREA isn't suspect to dangerous fires, so they make laws that suit THEM. Its called self governence. |
| Date | 00:13:31, July 24, 2008 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | And yet 650 Convocation members disagree... |
| Date | 00:19:12, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | Innocente Immeressen issued the following statement: "To our colleagues in the TCP - the problem is, it doesn't work like that. It isn't 'common sense'. Repeatedly, the TCP angle has been that 'it will hurt no one but themselves' - but fire doesn't operate on those parameters. If you let a wildfire get out of control - it spreads. Like wildfire, no less." |
| Date | 02:28:04, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | And the province's that want to protect themselves from the fire will. Because they will have a fire department. |
| Date | 03:03:08, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | Yes - but by the time it gets to them, it's a national disaster... |
| Date | 04:04:33, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | Why? |
| Date | 06:34:31, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Fire Department Act |
| Message | Innocente Immeressen issued the following statement: "We feel like we are covering the same ground with the TCP - the whole point is that local fire prevention is optional fire prevention. And optional fire prevention isn't enough - because fire doesn't care about political boundaries. And, if one community decides they don't need an orgainsed fire force, it's not JUST them that will be harmed by an outbreak of wildfires. That's the thing about fire - it spreads, it grows... it gets more and more out of control. The TCP 'local' approach allows fires to get out of control. And then, by the time they get to a county that DOES have organised protection, it's already too late". |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 16 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 650 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Information about the population of each country can be found on the Population Information thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8663 |
| Random quote: Time and again, the police prove themselves to be the Class Enemy, an armed mob used to oppress the masses and maintain the wealthy in their privileges. ~Friedrich Pfeiffer, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party |