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: Scale-Back of Health Regulations
Details
Submitted by[?]: Front for State Prosperity
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: January 2129
Description[?]:
| I already posted my arguments last time. I'll repost them in the comments section. |
Proposals
Article 1
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: The government recommends food safety standards, but they are not enforced upon businesses.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:51:25, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | First off, the food processor who's products make people sick is damaging their own market. Few manufacturers would willingly act in ways that would diminish their potential market, and that's not even counting the bad publicity that comes from shoddy products. Furthermore, the wise producer will take every effort to ensure that their product is as healthy as possible so that they can then advertise far and wide the health benefit of using their product over their less healthy competitor. Secondly, government regulations reduce economic flexibility, for they make it harder for small businesses to operate. Large, current businesses can comply easily but small ones, startups, will not have access to the required capital nor will they have the credentials to apply for loans. This reduces competition in the market. Reduced competition means that the economy will recover slowly from bad periods and will grow less during good ones. Reduced competition also means less need to innovate, which means that less money will be spent on research and efficiency. This directly contributes to less healthy food products as companies have less motivation to aspire to higher levels of performance. Lastly, regulations in this area would contribute to two negative societal indicators. They would encourage consumer apathy and corporate distrust. First off, consumers who trusted the government to ensure their health would pay less attention to the products that they were consuming. This is a further detriment to innovation as companies would know this and encourage this, to prevent healthier products from intruding on their market share and to save themselves the costs of improving. Secondly, companies who distrusted the government would convey that distrust through their influence, to the populace. This would contribute to voter apathy and possibly even create feelings of disenfranchisement. Perhaps an even worse idea, companies who distrusted the government would seek to control it and use it, since they would be operating under the belief that it wouldn't act in good faith on it's own. There are numerous potential results that this might engender. I will leave the speculating to my fellows in the legislature. In closing, regulations in this area are detrimental to the economy and the common weal, and the Pragmatic Capitalist Party is establishing itself to the belief that these particular regulations should be rolled back. However, in the spirit of encouraging research and operating under the belief that an independent research body could more equitably distribute findings, the government shall hereby establish an independent research group which will examine ways in which food safety can be improved. The findings of said research group will be freely accessible to all consumers and corporations. Food processing corporations who research further in these areas shall not be required to share their findings with the government research body, however, those who do shall be granted a tax break of 1% of their income from that year. |
| Date | 14:23:08, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | Response to the PCP: This policy is just as flawed this time, as it was last time. It appears that the PCP is more concerned with proposing legislation, than with actually thinking it through, since the whole premise of this legislation is fatally flawed. "the food processor who's products make people sick is damaging their own market. Few manufacturers would willingly act in ways that would diminish their potential market"... Obviously the PCP is not aware of the entire Likatonian tobacco industry? It is quite simple for participants in the food industry to play the 'blame game'... each assigning the detrimental effects of products to OTHER products in the market... and, while no players in that game are accountable, there is no way for the consumer to KNOW that they are being hurt by a given good. The PCP should consider WHY regulation was first introduced. It wasn't arbitrary. |
| Date | 18:40:10, October 18, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | As long as this is coupled with a vigorous truth in labeling law such as we currently have, it is in keeping with teh libertarian philosophies espoused by our party. By setting standards, the government is informing our citizens as to the best practices in the industry. Any company following these standards would advertise that fact, thereby capturing a larger market share than those who do not. The people are then free to make thier own choice as to what they want. At the risk of being harsh, Darwin will take care of those who choose poorly. |
| Date | 08:06:17, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | "Obviously the PCP is not aware of the entire Likatonian tobacco industry?" - yes, we are, and we condemn them. |
| Date | 08:09:25, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | The RLP points out other potential factors. Likatonian law requires very precise labelling in all sectors, and the research body that we support the funding of would tell the best practices anyways. People who trusted the government's regulations would favor products that followed them. People who didn't trust the government would not. It comes down to personal choice, and isn't that the cornerstone of libertarian principles? |
| Date | 08:19:36, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | Unfortunately, we cannot support this legislation, even with the new labeling laws in effect. The food standards provisions cover more than just the labeling of ingredients going in the products. Proper temperature storage of meat at the markets and the sanitation of food processing centers are among the many aspects of the current food safety policy that will be lost and not addressed by the labeling laws. |
| Date | 10:18:23, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | Wise companies will follow all sanitation guidelines so as not to lose public trust. Those who do not follow set government guidelines will come up with their own guidelines. Few will shop at a place in which all the meat is lying in the open and rotting, no matter how cheap it is, while there remains a sanitary alternative. |
| Date | 17:34:05, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | So we should allow companies to poison Likatonians? |
| Date | 21:13:44, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | Companies that poison Likatonians will lose out on the market. That's their funeral. |
| Date | 21:16:59, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | Response to the PCP: The Likatonian tobacco industry makes a liar of your arguments. |
| Date | 22:53:11, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | AAP: As I said, we support moves against the tobacco industry. We aren't lying, they are. That's one corporation that we're nowhere near morally bankrupt enough to support. |
| Date | 23:07:17, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | And yet, quite clearly, the tobacco industry has PROVEN health risks, has had speculated health risks for decades, and has magnified it's market share. You cannot automatically isolate WHICH product is harmful, or which combinations are harmful - and that is why government regulation is so important... if the government disallows carcinogens in food products, for example, the customer needn't risk an avoidable illness. |
| Date | 05:29:17, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | And if the government disallows every single suspected carcinogen from food products, then the customer must by either bland food or high priced food. Sometimes it's even, on balance, less healthy foods. You'd be amazed how many things can be cancer-causing and the government must be very careful not to make a blanket ban like that. If you're that worried about the tobacco industry, put legislation out restricting them. We'd support. |
| Date | 11:02:10, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | It must be enforced. |
| Date | 20:09:45, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | Response to the PCP: We realise that the PCP wishes to push this agenda, but your arguments are not logical. The AAP did not imply that ALL carcinogens should be avoided at ALL stages of food production (we could not disinfect most food products if we did not rely on the free-radical (and, therefore, potentially carcinogenic) nature of Chlorine. It also makes no sense to assume that leaving known toxins out of food automatically makes them bland, tasteless or unhealthy. The whole point of this debate, one assumes, is to argue whether government should introduce, and actively enforce, food standards.... not to impose blanket bans. |
| Date | 16:52:57, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Scale-Back of Health Regulations |
| Message | Most "known toxins" are in place for a reason. For instance, many "known toxins" are invaluable in ensuring the health of crops through growth. Other "known toxins" are good for making sure that the product doesn't rot on the store shelf, thus making them more healthy. Still other "known toxins" are used in place of even worse additives to maintain flavor while improving healthiness. No it won't automatically reduce taste and health. It will for some products in some instances. Sodas, for instance, will lose out in both health and flavor at once. On the other hand, your willingness to be a more careful judge proves that you're concerned but also rational, and if the status quo must be maintained, your presence in government is quite reassuring. There's another point besides the health issue. Even your points and presence only serve to convince us that this is equally healthy, but it doesn't convince me that your path is superiorly healthy. In any case, the other issue is towards startup costs. This discourages the formation of small, local businesses. The only businesses that can be 100% certain of passing regulations are larger ones. They can afford whatever we demand of them. It will cut into their profit margins, but it will do so acceptably. Smaller businesses will not have this profit margin to be cut into. For them it's not a matter of being less profitable, it's a matter of simply not having the startup capital to pursue the advancements. The reason we'd still advocate the existence of a government research body is because we trust that companies would switch to the best methods as soon as they could so as to gain the propoganda benefit and appeal to a wider market. Meanwhile, this government research body could exist to encourage the adoption of these best methods and would continuously research towards even better ones. We would replace a bunch of disconnected and uninformed beaurocrats with a group of dedicated and highly knowledgeable researchers, and guess which one we believe would provide the superior solution? We don't have that much faith in the ability of politicians to even know the healthiest methods in the first place, so we wanted to replace that with a more knowledgeable source. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 140 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 360 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The forum contains a lot of useful information, it has updates to the game, role playing between nations, news and discussion. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." - Martin Luther King Jr. |