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: Anarch Anakrousite Reform Bill - Fitness to Defend (ii)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Commonwealth Workers Army
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 2132
Description[?]:
| The AAP believes that Likatonia balances it's well-being in the hands of market forces, to far too great an extent. After all, this IS our National Defence, we are talking about. While we fully support and endorse freedom of market forces, there are some areas where it may be better to allow the government to shoulder SOME of the responsibility. For example, where National Security is on the line. The AAP suggests that certain key areas of the defence industry be placed in the hands of not-for-profit agencies, regulated directly by government departments. These are NOT intended to utterly displace private defence facilities, but, instead, to reinforce and support them. In placing ALL the national defence in the hands of private operators, Likatonia places it's safety in the hands of independents. Likatonia pays those independent orgainisations for their defence services, which means the government 'calls the shots'. However, if ALL of our defence is tendered out to the lowest bidder, what happens if another power makes a better offer? The AAP believes we should try not to have ALL our eggs in one basket. As it is, we are 'funding' the private agencies, anyway, by paying for their services. The AAP merely believes we should apply SOME of that money 'directly', to a government defence intitiative. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Current: The state owns all defence industries.
Proposed: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:33:47, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Anarch Anakrousite Reform Bill - Fitness to Defend (ii) |
| Message | Nothing stops us under current law from applying money to government defense initiatives. Indeed, what current law means is that we will contract with private companies to do this. Since private companies are generally under contractural constraints regarding time and money, these projects are typically finished faster and cheaper than government workers would manage. Furthermore, the nationalized industries will almost certainly out-compete the privatized ones in the markets. First off, government contracts will almost certainly be awarded to the nationalized industries, leading to a major drop in revenue for private companies and an inefficient and wasteful construction process for the government. Secondly, most government run systems are run at loss instead of for-profit. Therefore they will outcompete privatized industries. After all when a nationalized industry runs into trouble it can dip into the taxpayer's money for funding. It will be able to use this taxpayer subsidy to offer arms and contracts at a lower price than private industries. The private industries will eventually go bankrupt. The public industries will continue to operate at tremendous loss to the taxpayer. Lastly, these are private industries that sell weapons to and build facilities for our national army. Our army is not independent. We do not buy independent security. We buy independently produced weapons and contract out to independent labor. This is much cheaper than making these weapons and facilities ourselves. We do not have to worry about foreign powers buying away our weapons and construction companies. Our demand will still exist, and where there is a demand, the market will provide. That's the truth in market freedoms. Demand-side economics says that where there is demand, supply will be found. While our demand exists, private companies that cater to this demand will exist and will continue to exist. |
| Date | 14:09:12, October 26, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Anarch Anakrousite Reform Bill - Fitness to Defend (ii) |
| Message | We cannot support even this partial nationalization of our vital industries. The lack of effeciency and oprtunities for increased corruption would do great harm to our national defense. |
| Date | 20:45:17, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Anarch Anakrousite Reform Bill - Fitness to Defend (ii) |
| Message | Response to the PCP: We believe you ignored the point. Let us assume we have a set of private companies that manufacture and maintain ALL of our munitions and facilities. Let us also assume (as is currently the case), that we do NOT have separate, government-owned facilities to do the same manufacture and maintainence. Now - let us assume that Keymon starts offering to pay TWICE, per item, what the Likatonian budget will pay? |
| Date | 21:09:34, October 26, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Anarch Anakrousite Reform Bill - Fitness to Defend (ii) |
| Message | One would presume that the Minister of Defense would have lock in long term contracts with optioons to renew which would have prevented this from affecting anything but surplus production in our domestic industries. If this is not the case, we need to examine the fitness of our government Office of Oversight. |
| Date | 22:28:17, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Anarch Anakrousite Reform Bill - Fitness to Defend (ii) |
| Message | If the Radical Libertarian Party wishes to draw-up contract law that binds defence industries to preset customer bases, the AAP will be happy to debate such legislation on the Senate floor. |
| Date | 06:26:18, October 27, 2005 CET | From | Representative Party | To | Debating the Anarch Anakrousite Reform Bill - Fitness to Defend (ii) |
| Message | We oppose this bill as it does not limit exports of arms. |
| Date | 14:05:16, October 27, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Anarch Anakrousite Reform Bill - Fitness to Defend (ii) |
| Message | We do not propose restricting the industries to a pre-set customer base, but if we have multi-year contracts to meet our needs, we can avoid the situation described by the AAP. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 87 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 221 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 192 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson |