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: State's Rights Act - Civil Rights Amendment
Details
Submitted by[?]: Dranland First Party (CC)
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: May 2640
Description[?]:
| For many years now, state's rights have been under constant assault from the major parties of Dranland. The rights of local governments and local communities have been sacraficed entirely, and the so-called 'rights' of individuals to behave in a way that undermines civilized society, social norms, and time-honored institutions like marriage and the family, have taken precedent. Decision-making capacity has also been stripped of local governments more and more, perpetuating the managerial state's monopoly on all social issues. This agenda masquerades as one of 'civil rights', but is, in essence, merely a quest to concentrate power into the hands of central government idealogues, who want nothing more than to impose their agenda on the entire nation, with no respect for those local communities who may disagree. The One Nation Party will not stand for this - it is time to stand up for the local families and communities of Dranland; ordinary Dranii citizens whose concerns fall on deaf ears, and whose regional cultures, traditions, institutions and particularities are being trampled on by the managerial state. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Regulation is used to screen out only those with a previous history of child abuse.
Current: Adoption is strictly regulated by the government. Only by passing several tests and by following an intensive program applicants can adopt children.
Proposed: Adoption policy is to be established by local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to adultery.
Old value:: There is no explicit government policy on adultery.
Current: Adultery is illegal, but not prosecuted.
Proposed: Local governments establish policies on adultery.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding bestiality (performing sexual acts with animals).
Old value:: The government has no policy concerning bestiality.
Current: Bestiality is illegal.
Proposed: The legality of bestiality is decided upon by local governments.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government position in respect to crossdressing policy.
Old value:: Crossdressing is allowed.
Current: Crossdressing is allowed.
Proposed: Local governments determine the legality of crossdressing.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Current: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are prohibited.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to polygamy.
Old value:: There is no explicit government policy on polygamy.
Current: The government does not recognise polygamous relationships.
Proposed: Local governments establish policies on polygamy.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning racial segregation in educational institutions.
Old value:: Public educational institutions cannot be segregated, private institutions can choose to apply a policy of segregation.
Current: Segregation is illegal in all educational institutions.
Proposed: Segregation policy is set by local governments.
Article 8
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on sexual relations.
Old value:: Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
Current: Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
Proposed: Sexual relation laws are set by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:48:17, September 20, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the State's Rights Act - Civil Rights Amendment |
| Message | Neutrality isn't 'imposition'; choice is not inqusition. |
| Date | 07:38:30, September 20, 2008 CET | From | Sons of Liberty | To | Debating the State's Rights Act - Civil Rights Amendment |
| Message | Ditto. |
| Date | 10:37:34, September 20, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the State's Rights Act - Civil Rights Amendment |
| Message | We beg to differ. And the fact that the NFP and SoL claim to be 'neutral' is rediculous. The NFP and the SoL pursue an agenda of rampant pluralism and unfettered social freedom. On the surface, this may appear to be neutral. However, contrary to what the NFP claim, this agenda can, and is being imposed. Local families and communities are being forced to live in a society that they can no longer relate to; a society in which they have been disenfranchised; a society that, due to the NFP and the SoL's constant influence, has abandoned the morals, traditions, institutions and culture that once defined what it meant to be a citizen of Dranland, and has consistently favored the rights of the weak-willed and the depraved over the rights of decent, ordinary people. They are being forced into change; forced into pluralism; forced into a society where anything goes. When did these people ever have a say? The NFP and the SoL have done nothing but strip them of their rights and their voice, removing their local rights to decide for themselves whether their community should be sacraficed to the decadant modern civilization these parties have created. And the NFP claim to be neutral? That is simply laughable. |
| Date | 19:47:16, September 20, 2008 CET | From | Party | To | Debating the State's Rights Act - Civil Rights Amendment |
| Message | We disagree with article 7, but agree on all other accounts. |
| Date | 20:19:01, September 20, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the State's Rights Act - Civil Rights Amendment |
| Message | No, local families do not have to interact with other 'immoral' cultures, and they can discriminate as much as they want against them in every social sphere save the public institutions which are required to be nondiscrimitory. Where are the laws to outlaw hetereosexual behavior? To force a daily amount of opiate use? What is laughable is that the ONP will rail against freedom if it suits their ideological quirks instead of letting the people decide what to do. If a group's 'culture' requires forcing dissenting ideas into submission in order to be preserved then it only shows how reactionary and pathetic its ideology really is. We will not stand for these Sharia Accords. |
| Date | 06:10:04, September 21, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the State's Rights Act - Civil Rights Amendment |
| Message | "Where are the laws to outlaw heterosexual behavior? To force a daily amount of opiate use?" The attack on social norms like heterosexuality and abstinence from recreational drug use is waged through an absence of laws, which makes it all the more illusive. This pluralist, liberal agenda is a hidden enemy of culture, family, values and tradition, undermining them every step of the way, carefully hidden by the abstract ideals of individualism, egalitarianism, 'tolerance', equality and compassion. Thus, in response to the NFP's comments, there are no 'laws' imposing drug-use or outlawing heterosexuality, but these agendas are being imposed all the same, through an absence of laws and a disrespect for established institution and cultural heritage. An absence of these laws allows mass pop-culture, the unrestricted, animalistic nature of mankind, and the decadent trends of modern western civilization to reign free, unabated by the self-restraint and values that maintain civilized society. This is not to say that those who want to practice traditional values and ways of life cannot do so privately under the anarchic, pluralist society that the NFP and the SoL so fervently advocate. However, viewing society merely as a collection of individuals each exercising his own will, based on his own 'rationality', doing whatever he wants to pursue his own ideals that he created, is an utter fallacy and a philosophical superstition. Society is not merely a collection of individuals - society comprises of groups, families, communities, and various other forms of social association, each bound by a unified sense of cultural heritage; a common set of values. There is such a thing as the common good - the NFP and the SoL ignore this or at least consistently disregard it - and this means that, even though the drug-use and moral bankruptcy of others may not necessarily harm another individual's capacity to live a decent, traditional lifestyle, it will effect the society he lives in. The NFP and the SoL may think of every issue in terms of how it effects the individual, but everything has a flow-on effect in society, and local citizens and their representative governments should not be precluded from their right to shape their communities as they see fit, merely because of this unconditional worship of the individual. "...the ONP will rail against freedom...instead of letting the people decide what to do. " What this legislation attempts to do is, in fact, just that - it lets the people decide. But the NFP's ideas of what constitutes 'the people' are very different from our own. 'The people' are not simply a group of individuals with no relation to each other. 'The people' are a collection of individuals who share a common ancestry; a common set of values and wisdom passed down from their forebears; a common culture; a common tradition. In this sense, we are, in fact, 'letting the people decide'. This is exactly what we are doing with this legislation, by allowing local governments to decide on these issues in accordance with the concerns of their local communities. The NFP merely refuses to acknowledge the existence and importance of the collective will, the collective culture, and the collective morality. Individual rights are of course enormously important, but when the concerns of culture, morality and tradition are supplanted by them, they have gone too far. "If a group's 'culture' requires forcing dissenting ideas into submission in order to be preserved then it only shows how reactionary and pathetic its ideology really is." Our culture would not need protection if the major parties of this nation had not been consistently chipping away at it by constantly imposing a pluralist, individualist agenda, descending our society into a state of anarchy. Granted, in the face of enemies such as pop-culture, sexual liberation, and pluralism, which all constantly seek to destroy it, perhaps our culture does need protection in the modern era. This does not make it 'pathetic' or 'reactionary'. If it is worth protecting, which we believe it is and which the people of Dranland believe it is, why should it not be protected? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 61 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 153 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 51 |
| Random fact: Particracy is completely free! If you want to support the game financially, feel free to make a small donation to the lievenswouter@gmail.com Paypal account. |
| Random quote: "The Lord is a man of war" - Exodus 15:3 |