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: A Garbage Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: AM Radical Libertarian 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: March 2129
Description[?]:
WHEREAS it is obvious that private enterprise is, by nature, more efficient than government run, non-competative bodies, AND recognizing that the protection of the environment is too important to be left in the hands of any but the most effecient suppliers; THRERFORE we offer this suggestion to the Senate of de-nationalizing the disposal of special waste, while regulating the disposition of all waste for the protection of the world environment. In the event of a waste disposal company leaving the business without transfer of it's assets, the Government will take over the facilities until a buyer can be found. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Waste disposal responsibility.
Old value:: Government disposes special waste only.
Current: The government is responsible for waste disposal.
Proposed: Waste disposal is left entirely to the private sector but is regulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 00:52:36, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | We strongly support this proposal. |
Date | 15:35:12, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | The AAP wonders how the private sector is supposed to deal with issues such as the safe removal of nuclear wastes, for example? No private industry has the resources and leverage to co-ordinate the formation and upkeep of toxic waste storage facilities for ALL Likatonian industry... and we cannot allow such enterprises to be maintained by groups that might not be able to maintain such contracts PERMANENTLY. |
Date | 06:58:11, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | The AAP has a good point. Most wastes can be handled by private industry, but a few of them - nuclear wastes are the perfect example - need to be maintained permanently. With that in consideration, we will change our stance back to supporting the current law. |
Date | 10:11:44, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | Let the state continue as it is. This proposal, even with heavy regulation, will not benefit the environment or those who leave near rubbish dumps. |
Date | 16:40:41, October 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | As we are proposing denationalizing current facilities, whover takes over would purchase the existing sites from the government. This would increase the cash flow this year, as well as allowing for more effeciency in the future operations and increased tax revenus, as the private company would not be tax exempt, like the current government run operation. |
Date | 16:47:59, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | RLP: We would support with the exception of one question. If a waste disposal company goes out of business and leaves a nuclear waste disposal facility behind, who takes over? I'd suggest a provision in the bill description that in such an event the government will take over temporarily until a new buyer could be found. If you can answer that problem satisfactorily, we'll side with you. We're just afraid of the negative environmental effects that occur when one of these private companies goes out of business. |
Date | 17:37:48, October 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | PCC: Excellent suggestion - see the modified description. |
Date | 20:32:58, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | Still, the AAP has to object... even with the modified text - for one simple reason - dumping high-risk wastes just is NOT profitable. Whoever undertakes such a challenge must set aside a venue PERMANENTLY... but which will only receive 'profit' in the short-term. For example - once you have dumped the capacity of a site, you can dump no MORE waste there - and thus, can receive no more income. But you must STILL maintain that site, and ensure that it STAYS maintained, for the duration of the contamination... which MIGHT be hundreds of thousands of years. No company will take over a totally non-productive industry that requires constant and HEAVILY regulated maintainence... so the waste dumps will always reort back to government control eventually... but the government is not going to be the agency that made all the profit... just the one left paying the bills - while some other group of profiteers walks away laughing. |
Date | 20:45:32, October 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | A proper business model will take that into account - for example one could charge rent rather than just an up front charge, or make the charge sufficient to invest in such a way as to pay for upkeep. |
Date | 21:32:02, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | The AAP believes that the RLP is missing the point: how can one charge enough for (effectively) ETERNAL upkeep? How does ANY 'upfront' mechanism allow for unlimited ground-rent? And, if you pass that cost to the nuclear industry... how does a 'nuclear' company build a business model that allows for them to 'rent' their waste disposal? After all... it isn't like you can 'undo' the disposal, if it is too expensive. You can't just go in and say "okay, we'll take our 60 million gallons of toxic sludge home with us... do you have a to-go pack?" |
Date | 21:46:58, October 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | By investing in an anuity type of arangement, one can guarantee a stream of revenue without going into the original capital, the benefit of compounding interest. And the cost should be passed back to the industry producing the waste, otherwise they are not utilizing true costs in the CBA. If the revenue will notr cover the cost, then other avenues of production need to be explored. |
Date | 22:25:54, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | Even if one participates in annuities... even if one receives compound interest... there are still problems. The Storage Facility effectively has a captive market... once you have stored your waste there... they can charge what they like. It's not like you can take it back. And - if the cost escalate year on year, whilst the revenue stream remains pretty much constant, OBVIOUSLY there is no form of investment that can ASSURE covering that cost. All of these problems are avoided by making SPECIAL waste disposal an assumed cost, in a not-for-profit government programme. |
Date | 22:31:29, October 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | Contractual arangements, freely entered into by both sides, can fix rates or tie them to a COLA stream. An environment with rising costs is probably also going to show rising interest rates and dividends, so the value of investment will also rise as well. |
Date | 22:50:52, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | The RLP somehow seems to envision that waste disposal can ONLY increase at a rate consonant with interest rates? |
Date | 22:56:15, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | Ehhh, going to have to side with the AAP again. I am exceedingly grateful for this illuminating and valuable debate. It's bringing up points that would never have occurred to me. |
Date | 23:25:13, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | Actually - most of the deeper ramifications didn't occur to the AAP at first... the current legislation is an AAP revision of an earlier AAP legislation which originally left ALL waste-disposal in the private sector. It was an unfortunate thing to have to do, to revoke our OWN bill (and take the 'damage' that caused)... but it just didn't seem practical to keep it that way any longer. |
Date | 14:25:07, October 20, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | To AAP: No, the rates do not necessarily have to be consistant. That's why business is a gamble, the costs may go up by more, less, or the same as the rate of return on the investments. In the long run, things tend to average out. |
Date | 14:41:58, October 20, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | To a vote, as we feel there has been an extensive and enlightining debate. |
Date | 20:39:40, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the A Garbage Bill |
Message | Response to the RLP: And, there, our friends, is the heart of the debate: "That's why business is a gamble..." We CANNOT allow the disposal of something as potentially harmful as nuclear waste (for example), to BE "a gamble". There are some chances a nation should take... some risks a government should embrace... some hardships industry should have to endure. "Gambling" with nuclear contamination is not one of those things. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||||
yes | Total Seats: 99 | |||||||
no |
Total Seats: 401 | |||||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: The grey space in the east is populated by the forum-based countries, known in-game as the former colonies or the "Third World". These countries are managed by the Third World Coordinator but players can request control of individual countries in the Third World Control Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8302 |
Random quote: "We make war that we may live in peace." - Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics |