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: By the people, of the people, and for the people act
Details
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: November 2641
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Racial segregation of public amenities (eg. drinking fountains, public toilets)
Old value:: Segregation of any public amenity is banned.
Current: Segregation of any public amenity is banned.
Proposed: Government owned amenities are not segregated, private organisations are free to choose.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's position towards the use of forensic DNA databases.
Old value:: Only DNA from persons convicted of crime is recorded.
Current: DNA from persons accused or convicted for a crime is recorded.
Proposed: The decision on forensic DNA databases is left to local governments.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Commercial fishing regulation.
Old value:: The government establishes fishing quotas.
Current: The fishing industry is nationalised, and the government sets production levels.
Proposed: Local governments can establish fishing quotas
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Food safety policy.
Old value:: The government introduces, and actively enforces, food standards provisions.
Current: The government introduces, and actively enforces, food standards provisions.
Proposed: Local governments determine food safety standards.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Licensing of food sales.
Old value:: Anyone may sell food, but shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Current: Anyone may sell food, but shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Proposed: The licensing of food sale is left for local governments to decide.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: Health care is private, but the government subsidises the cost of it for all citizens.
Current: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
Proposed: Local governments decide about healthcare policies
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change Health and safety legislation for industry.
Old value:: The government introduces and actively regulates health and safety legislation in all areas of industry.
Current: The government introduces and actively regulates health and safety legislation in all areas of industry.
Proposed: Health and safety laws are to be determined by local governments.
Article 8
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards giving aid to foreign countries.
Old value:: The government supplies "tied" aid to poorer nations in return for trading rights.
Current: The government supplies "tied" aid to poorer nations in return for trading rights.
Proposed: The government never offers international aid.
Article 9
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding regulation of media content.
Old value:: There are laws against the publication of false information; everything else may be published freely.
Current: There are laws against the publication of false information; everything else may be published freely.
Proposed: There are no content regulations; the media may publish anything, even proven falsehoods.
Article 10
Proposal[?] to change The use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.
Old value:: Cannabis is legal as a sedative for patients in pain.
Current: Cannabis is legal as a sedative for patients in pain.
Proposed: The legality of medicinal cannabis is established by local governments.
Article 11
Proposal[?] to change Right to privacy.
Old value:: Individuals have a right to privacy, but the courts can force individuals to give information on certain matters if needed. (also known as Habeas Data).
Current: Individuals have a right to privacy, but the courts can force individuals to give information on certain matters if needed. (also known as Habeas Data).
Proposed: Individuals have a right to privacy, to keep records and information for themselves.
Article 12
Proposal[?] to change The education system.
Old value:: Education is private, but the government subsidises the cost of it for everyone
Current: There is a free public education system alongside private schools.
Proposed: Education is a matter of local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:23:33, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | We fervently support the majority of the articles in this legislation. We do not agree with article 11 or article 8, however. We believe that it is important that any and all information and evidence that is vital to the course of justice is legally available - too many restrictions on this will simply impede the processes of justice. We also believe that libel laws are important because they protect the reputation of individuals and businesses from falsehoods that may tarnish their name. Because we support the rest of the articles without reservation, however, we support. |
| Date | 11:41:48, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Sons of Liberty | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | We like roughly one third of this, but dislike the rest. For the moment we will abstain; however, should it come to it, we will vote to cast it down. |
| Date | 15:23:16, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | One third of this legislation? Surely the Sons of Liberty would support federalism - decentralization is an absolutely necessary condition for freedom and a protection against tyranny. And surely the SoL would have nothing against local governments determining food safety regulations etc., especially considering that the current policy is, if anything, more regulatory than what has been proposed. The various articles in this legislation that do not concern federalism should also be to the SoL's approval - all of them allow for greater individual freedoms and rights. So then how could the SoL possibly only like one third of this legislation? From our knowledge of the SoL and their major policies, most if not all of these articles should be to their satisfaction. We do not understand. |
| Date | 18:52:39, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | The outlawing of medicinal marijuana is definitely not pro-"freedom". |
| Date | 21:18:09, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Party | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | We never suggested that. A centralized state forcing every community to make it legal is not pro-freedom either. |
| Date | 21:19:35, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Party | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | And we also must ask the sons of libery why they can only come to agreeance with one third of this bill. Juding from the SOL's past voting policies, we would think they would agree with about 9 of these articles. |
| Date | 21:21:31, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Party | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | Whilst there are alot of those 9 that the SOL may prefer centralized with no restrictions, surely allowing local governments to decide, giving atleast a chance that there may less restrictions somwhere, should be more appealing to the SOL's agenda. |
| Date | 21:56:15, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | Well this bill would allow it to be outlawed just because the majority in your community believes it should. |
| Date | 01:16:04, September 24, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | "Well this bill would allow it to be outlawed just because the majority in your community believes it should." And why wouldn't the NFP want to allow them? It's their community, with their own particularities, cultural inheritance and moral values. Why does the NFP constantly champion the rights of individual self-determination, yet never the rights of a small group? Why is the NFP so afraid to give local governments any rights whatsoever, constantly pushing to concentrate power into the hands of the central government? After all, it is inherantly contradictory to say that the NFP opposes 'majority' rule, when they are in fact using majority rule to impose a liberal agenda on those small communities who have little say. We are not saying individual rights are not important - they are an immensely important aspect of this country's constitution. But they should not be prioritized over things like culture, tradition, morality or social norms. The NFP and the SoL are strange breeds of libertarians\individualists. They champion the rights of individuals and their freedom from government, but when it comes to centralization they might as well be Stalinists. |
| Date | 04:23:14, September 24, 2008 CET | From | Sons of Liberty | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | "They champion the rights of individuals and their freedom from government, but when it comes to centralization they might as well be Stalinists." We simply don't want to give local governments the rights to be tyrants. Just because a smaller group decides to rule with an iron fist doesn't make it right - we'd rather on a large scale guarentee the rights of the individual. You've asked why we are only in agreeance with a portion. We shall discuss in itemization. 1: We could agree to this. Our preferece is that there be recommendations, but not mandatory. However, all options are less restricive than this. Article one we can support, though don't mind the status quo. 2: It is a bane to economy to force licenses to be acquired to sell food. The ability for competition to form when there is regulation is stunted. This harms the market. At current, there is no licensing. Competition and the market could be harmed if they are forced in some areas - we prefer no licenses anywhere to ensure the market's freedom. 3: We don't particularly like the current whatsoever - subsidy is evil. But by local government legislation, full socialization would be entirely capable, with taxation to boot, forcing poor, uncompetitive health care on citizens. We won't stand for it. 4: This we can agree to in that all other options available are better, but still prefer a set standard of recommended, but not mandated, to again leave government hands out of the market. 5: We won't have places where individuals are stifled from healing their pain however they see fit. It is cruel to them and unfair. 6: We see no need for any place to record all citizens' DNA or accused. 7: Same as with health care, we won't stand for socialized schooling and government control stifling competition and levying taxes on unwilling participants. 8: We don't terribly mind, but we're strong proponents of truth, which without, may give unfair advantage in competitive edge. Scandal and slander can ruin. "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Churchill 9: We feel this is a little better, but not much. 10: We absolutely agree, 100%. 11: Again, absolutely, 100% agree, beyond compare. 12: And again, we completely agree. |
| Date | 04:53:40, September 24, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the By the people, of the people, and for the people act |
| Message | We actually largely agree with the articles in this legislation, as the SOL does. Before another rhetorical tirade against our disagreement about the proper amount of unitarism vs federalism we'd like to say in the matter of medicinal marijuana it does not fit the criteria (in our eyes) as a matter to be left to local government. This is as absurd as a community banning a plethora of prescribed medication much worse than marijuana, which has been shown by consensus of medical science experts to be both a> more effective in treating many painful ailments than synthetic alternatives b> immensely cheaper and c> very, VERY mild side-effects (approaching zero) while artificial medications carry much greater risk. The only reason this is even an issue is because of the taboo associated with the use of the substance recreationally and its late emergence into the West, compared to the cultural inheritance alcohol has, which possess both greater health risks and impairment capabilities. We would like the CC to admit this issue is not to be touched by rampant federalism-because-we-can -- there is a place for federalism and it is much preferable to centralized control in many respects and issues but it does not have a place in determining what medication our citizens can take (especially for extremely painful and ongoing diseases), and especially not when the entire consensus of medical experts are drowned out by emotional rants of ill-informed populism. Oppose recreational drugs and marijuana all you like, but if this issue is left to states then have some coherency and push the same for other medicines things like Vicodin, morphine, and the like. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 61 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 90 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 114 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "You don't have to explain something you never said." - Calvin Coolidge |