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: Infastructure Freedom 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: October 2613
Description[?]:
| These laws need to be dissolved to local governments. And all housing should be private. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Funding of public transport (where applicable).
Old value:: Public transport is fully subsidised by the government.
Current: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Proposed: Local governments decide upon the funding policy.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Renewable energy sources (eg. solar power, wind power).
Old value:: Government subsidies are provided for research and generation of energy through renewable sources.
Current: Government subsidies are provided for research and generation of energy through renewable sources.
Proposed: The decision on renewable energy sources is left up to local governments.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government policy regarding housing.
Old value:: The state owns and maintains all housing.
Current: The state provides public housing to low-income families.
Proposed: All housing is privately-owned.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:37:54, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Infastructure Freedom Act |
| Message | Why is housing being privatised on a national scale? There's no 'freedom' in that, except for landowners. Tenants get screwed. |
| Date | 03:41:43, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Infastructure Freedom Act |
| Message | We don't believe local governments should be allowed to make all housing public. We would allow local goverments to decide whether or not to implement public housing, but that is not an option. |
| Date | 04:42:52, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Infastructure Freedom Act |
| Message | Innocente Immeressen released the following statement: "The TCP recently said: "We don't believe local governments should be allowed to make all housing public. We would allow local goverments to decide whether or not to implement public housing, but that is not an option". This is a worthy political aim, to admit when the laws of the land don't match with your agenda. However, it doesn't explain why the TCP still went ahead and forced through such an absolute policy. Allowing for public AND private housing would have been a halfway house, and could have been used to allow localities to determine their own policy - if such a thing were, indeed, desired. But, the TCP chose not to follow that avenue - instead, choosing to gut the current law, and offer, in it's place, something equally extreme - but with the ADDED disadvantage that, some people in the TCP model will simply not be able to afford housing. Nice going. A backlash is coming - Likatonians don't like being played with like this." |
| Date | 05:53:17, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Red Tory Party | To | Debating the Infastructure Freedom Act |
| Message | We support article 3, although that is not enough for the support of the entire bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 161 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 358 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 147 |
| Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that. |
| Random quote: "Don't listen to what the Communists say, but look at what they do." - Nguyen Van Thieu |