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: Ecology Decentralization 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: April 2611
Description[?]:
| Allowing the federal government to make laws concerning these things is inefficient and opressive. The federal government cannot make laws on these things that suit every part of the country. This not only is inefficient, but it takes away the peoples right to make laws that suit their families and their communities, and is outrageous. You cannot achieve freedom and liberty by allowing the federal government to make all laws. The role of the federal government should mainly be national security, and it should not be interfering with provincial or regional government law making ability. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of hunting.
Old value:: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Current: The matters of hunting and fishing are handled by local governments.
Proposed: The matters of hunting and fishing are handled by local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on tree plantation.
Old value:: The government requires tree plantation at higher than replacement levels for all logging or clearance operations.
Current: The government does not intervene with regard to the replantation of trees.
Proposed: Local governments may set plantation policy.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Waste disposal responsibility.
Old value:: The government is responsible for waste disposal.
Current: The government is responsible for waste disposal.
Proposed: It is the responsibility of local governments to decide on waste disposal regulation.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Regulation of the quality of drinking water.
Old value:: The government sets a range of standards dependant on water usage. (grey water regulation, etc.)
Current: The government sets a single standard to ensure all tap water is drinkable.
Proposed: Local government is responsible for drinking water quality regulation.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The government's stance on whaling.
Old value:: Commercial whaling is legal, but the government establishes whaling quotas.
Current: Commercial whaling is illegal, but whaling for scientific purposes is allowed.
Proposed: Local governments decide about whaling.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:44:27, July 24, 2008 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | We could possibly vote for Article 1, but the rest? No chance. |
| Date | 01:56:35, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | The TCP keeps telling us about 'peoples rights' and what the government's role 'should be', and how people should have the right to 'make their own laws'. Why? It's a big claim - what justifies it? We in the SuDP believe in the greatest good for the greatest number. Sometimes that means a few people might be unhappy with the local law being opposed to how THEY would like local laws. But - we don't see how their selfishness trumps the needs of the many. What is the secret justification that the TCP have? |
| Date | 04:11:10, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | The justification is freedom. In a community where the poeple like things a certian way, they should be able to govern themselves and make it that way. And in an area where the majority of people like it a different way, they should be able to govern themselves and make it that way. And if there is someone in an area where a law is made that they disagree with, they can either live with it, try to get involved and change it, or they can move to a different area. |
| Date | 04:16:02, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | And we do definitely not believe in absolute federalism with no centralization. We are strongly opposed to that. However, we are federalists, and believe in local law making, with a certian number of inalienable rights and freedoms that every person in the nation should have, and a small amount of laws. Precisely, the rights in the US Bill of Rights. |
| Date | 06:40:55, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | What is this "US Bill of Rights". Are they are Lodamese party? |
| Date | 19:36:30, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | The US Bill of Rights is a list of amendments that guarantees rights and freedoms to the people of the United States of America. The rights and freedoms in it, are the same rights and freedoms we would want our nation to have. |
| Date | 19:41:50, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | The Golden Sun Party ave heard of this; isn't it that Kalistani sit-com; Us Bills have rights! about Wiliiam and Billy and their comedic japes? Not heard of this Amerrika though...maybe it's a rural thing? |
| Date | 20:28:09, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | OOC: TCP - we're making allowances, because you're new. This 'US Bill of Rights' thing doesn't exist in Likatonia, on Terra, or anywhere in Particracy - this is not Kansas, Kansas has gone bye-bye. As a further note - not everyone that plays particracy is American, and not everyone cares about the American way to do things, or even thinks it's best. This is a roleplay game in a completely different environment to your 'realworld', and we need to keep your 'real-life' material out-of-it. Put it this way - if I ask you what you mean by something, and you give an OOC response like: OOC - "what I mean is something like FEMA..." or something like that - okay. But if my party asks yours a question, and you start talking about the US constitution, it would be gibberish IN CHARACTER. Please - try to separate players from parties, and your 'real-life' content from what's happening IN the game? |
| Date | 20:28:46, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | IC: We have never heard of this Bills of Right. It sounds ghastly. |
| Date | 04:33:28, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | I was simply pointing out that we believe in the same rights that are given in the US Bill of Rights. Just so you have a better of idea of what rights we believe in. Its not because its the "US Bill of Rights" that we believe in it. Its because we believe in all the rights that are in the "US Bill of Rights". I could have never mentioned it and just listed all the rights that we believe in, but I thought the way I did might not take as long. You make huge commotions over tiny things. |
| Date | 04:34:10, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | And by the way, I'm a Canadian not an American. |
| Date | 04:37:17, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | And I have no idea what that Kansas thing is supposed to mean. I have never been to Kansas and don't know very much about it. And if I were to live in America, I would actually live in America, which is the south, not the US northern union. |
| Date | 06:04:06, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | OOC: *sigh* See the little 'OOC' bit? That means Out-Of-Character. Please, TCP, you're really disrupting the spirit of the thing. I really don't want to argue about the US bill of rights, because it has nothing to do wtih the game. I'd really like it if we could get this whole IC (in-character) and OOC (out of character) thing sorted. |
| Date | 18:50:42, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | You're the one who brought it up my freind. |
| Date | 21:45:20, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | OOC: Was that an out-of-character reply? |
| Date | 06:50:05, July 26, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | You only want it to be heard one way, you made a bunch of "out of character replies", but as soon as I make one that states that you are incorrect, you just make some dumb comment like the one above this. You do this because it is much easier than admitting that you are wrong. And maybe you don't think you're wrong, but you're not even willing to deal with the situation, you just keep trying to ignore what I am saying. You ARE the one who started making "our of character replies". And yes this IS an "out of character reply". I'm not just going to shut up and let you have your way simply because you are too scared too actually deal with it. |
| Date | 06:51:18, July 26, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | Maybe if you will actually deal with it, we will come to a conclusion, and we can finally stop making "out of character replies". |
| Date | 17:40:52, July 26, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ecology Decentralization Act |
| Message | OOC: I'm ignoring your insults - I really don't care about the "Bill of Rights" discussion in an out-of-character capacity. Please - keep it in character. IC: As states before, we in the SuDP believe in a pragmatic approach - if it's good for the greatest number, it's good. We don't believe this should mean targetting minorities for unfair treatment, of course - even our golden rule needs to be moderated by a principle of equality. And that is our core platform - justice for all, and pragmatism. We have yet to see any reason why Liaktonia should be governed by principles that divide, rather than unite. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 125 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 482 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 59 |
| Random fact: Particracy isn't just a game, it also has a forum, where players meet up to discuss role-playing, talk about in-game stuff, run their own newspaper or organisation and even discuss non-game and real-life issues! Check it out: http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |