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: Gated Communities Reform Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Conservative 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: October 2128
Description[?]:
| The NCP sees no reason the government be allowed to set up gated communities. In what situation would the government need to exercise this right? The only people the government should be locking up is criminals. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning gated communities.
Old value:: Both the government and the private sector can set up gated communities.
Current: The government sets up gated communities.
Proposed: The private sector can set up gated communities.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:25:12, October 18, 2005 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Gated Communities Reform Bill |
| Message | Yet when we attempted to ban them completely, the NCP voted against. Okay, so you see gated communities as locking people up. The NCP thinks our democratically elected and thus, people's-welfare-motivated government cannot be allowed to set them up. Yet unelected, profit-motivated companies can? The implications of this aren't very good... |
| Date | 14:37:19, October 18, 2005 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gated Communities Reform Bill |
| Message | If private citizens wish to live within gated communities for their protection then that is their choice to do so. The government should not intervene. |
| Date | 15:46:37, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Noel's House Party | To | Debating the Gated Communities Reform Bill |
| Message | This bill will mean that those citizens who are forced to live in government housing schemes will be denied the option to live in the relative protection of a gated community. If the NCP truly believes - and I quote - that "If private citizens wish to live in gated communities for their protection then it is their choice to do so" then they are proposing a bill which fundamentally undermines this belief, at least for citizens who cannot afford private housing. |
| Date | 16:47:45, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Gated Communities Reform Bill |
| Message | By devolving gated communities to only private ones we find ourselves with the worst scenario, one which both the NDP and the UPI stand opposed. Basically this reserves the ability to form a gated community only to the elite, while the UPI believes it should be available to everyone possible, as a choice, obviously never forced, the NDP seems to think that walls promote fear of the outsiders, but certainly if anyone's going to be setting it up, the NDP wouldn't want only the very well off to have it as an option. We in the UPI believe that gated communities are not so much about keeping other people out, or holding people in, but rather, pulling people together for their mutual benefit, and everyone, especially those who might lack extensive personal resources, deserves this opportunity. Clearly the UPI will vote to negate this resolution. ---Bob Hedberg, Primier |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 75 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 366 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
| Random quote: "It makes no difference, in principle, if this 'collective will' is divined by the edicts of a dictator or by majority vote, so long as the rights of the individual may still be sacrificed." - Robert Garmong |