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: McKenna Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Libertarian Party
Status[?]: passed
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 2623
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to kill animals.
Old value:: Killing animals is legal but regulated.
Current: Killing animals is legal but regulated.
Proposed: Killing animals is legal and unregulated.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of wild animals as pets.
Old value:: The government maintains a list of dangerous wild animals which may not be kept as pets; other wild animals may be kept as pets.
Current: This matter is left up to the local governments.
Proposed: All wild animals may be kept as pets, without any restrictions or precautions whatsoever.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:56:02, August 15, 2008 CET | From |  Progressive Liberal Party | To | Debating the McKenna Act |
| Message | We might support Article 1 (even though we are against animal torture), but Article 2 seems a bit too far fetched: I do _not_ want my neighbor to keep a python or a colony of tse-tse flies, unless he applies for a special "dangerous animals" permit. |
| Date | 23:23:10, August 15, 2008 CET | From | Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the McKenna Act |
| Message | The PLP's example of a colony of tse-tse flies is far fetched. What is even more far fetched is the idea that a permit keeps one any safer. If we were to weigh the possession of animals based on a proven statistical threat of harm, then we would be forced to ban the private possession of canines. |
| Date | 00:39:59, August 16, 2008 CET | From | Progressive Liberal Party | To | Debating the McKenna Act |
| Message | Maybe, and the private possession of cars, forcing everybody to use the proven safest movement method: airplanes. However, if "All wild animals may be kept as pets, without any restrictions or precautions whatsoever.", nothing prevents me from owning a colony of tse-tse flies. The idea of permits making things "safer" is not far fetched because of course permits would only be issued to people who can prove that they can keep the animals contained, just like permissions to build nuclear power plants are only issued to people whose blueprints, etc. assure they can keep the radiation contained. |
| Date | 20:48:46, August 16, 2008 CET | From | Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the McKenna Act |
| Message | Even with the widespread forms of permits and regulations required to own and drive a private car, this form of transportation remains the most dangerous form of travel whether regulated or unregulated. Why? Because it is the most commonly used form of transportation. For the very same reason that the private possession of canines will always pose a far greater threat to the safety of everyone than an exotic snake or a fantastic and irrational belief that anyone would ever desire to own a colony of tse tse flies. Government can not legislate safety, no more than it can be a constant backseat driver, only personal responsibility can. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 148 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 62 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Josef Stalin |