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: Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II)
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: July 2132
Description[?]:
| WHEREAS it is incumbent upon the government of our fair land to adopt policies which enhance the economic prosperity of our citizens AND there are a number of poorer nations who could benifit from our economic intervention to raise their standards of living; THEREFORE the Radical Libertarian Party wishes to link the level of foreign aid given to a country to the trade status of said country, thereby giving our industries preferential treatment to balance the cost of providing this aid. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards giving aid to foreign countries.
Old value:: The government gives moderate aid to countries in need.
Current: The government gives moderate aid to countries in need.
Proposed: The government supplies "tied" aid to poorer nations in return for trading rights.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:53:23, October 26, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | Delos D. Harriman, our past Minister for Trade and Industry, offers this bill for the consideration of the Senate: "We have here an unprecedented oportunity to help both our poorer neighbors and our own industry. By opening increased trade with these countries, they get the advantages of our superior products, while our own people get greater employment at home, thereby increasing our own standard of living while increasing that of the receipient nation as well. We have submitted this bill for the senate's consideration in the past, but feel that if those enlightened members who voted with us that time continue their support, we have the votes to pass it at this time." |
| Date | 22:07:21, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | The AAP believes we should be increasing foreign aid, and giving it direct to those who most need it... not making 'business deals' with the fatcats in starving countries, in order to make cheap profits off of slave labour merchandise. |
| Date | 22:11:31, October 26, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | By offering increased levels of aid to those countries which with we have a favorable trading relationship, we insure that the people are getting value for the money spent, as they are getting products made here in Likatonia, as well as increasing our economic growth by expanding our industries. The profits are being made here at home, where they go into the pockets of our citizens as dividends, wages, and benefits from the government, which increases it's tax revenues. |
| Date | 22:24:04, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | The AAP is torn. We see your logic... we really do, and how it benefits the Likatonian people. However, by establishing a necessity for a trade-relationship... the Likatonian aid system immediately 'regulates-out' some of the most needy foreign citizens... because they have nothing to trade, or they have no wealth, or their governments are corrupt, or their governments just REFUSE to trade. And, if trade IS established... the benefits of trade are unlikely to end up in the hands of those that need it... what we would effectively be doing, is increasing the coffers of corrupt governments, as a 'reward' for letting us feed some of their starving children. |
| Date | 22:34:18, October 26, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | If the governments refuse to trade or are that corrupt, I doubt that they would let us distribute aid according to our principles either, so either they would keep most of it themselves or we would refuse to send it because it would not get to the people. I doubt that there are any countries with nothing to trade, even if that is only natural resources of allowing us to build industrial facilities which would enrich both our country and theirs. The benefits of trade end up in all pockets. Even those who have no direct contact benefit from the lessened possibility of war if trade with another country is important to economic well being. If goods do not cross borders, eventually soldiers will. |
| Date | 22:36:54, October 26, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | If the governments refuse to trade or are that corrupt, I doubt that they would let us distribute aid according to our principles either, so either they would keep most of it themselves or we would refuse to send it because it would not get to the people. I doubt that there are any countries with nothing to trade, even if that is only natural resources of allowing us to build industrial facilities which would enrich both our country and theirs. The benefits of trade end up in all pockets. Even those who have no direct contact benefit from the lessened possibility of war if trade with another country is important to economic well being. If goods do not cross borders, eventually soldiers will. |
| Date | 22:37:45, October 26, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | Sorry about the double post - I have no idea how this one happened. |
| Date | 23:16:10, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | It's happened to me before.... it's a 'feature' of the system. :) |
| Date | 14:10:39, October 27, 2005 CET | From | Representative Party | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | We oppose this bill. We believe that aid should only be tied to the need of the people it's meant to help and the likelihood of the government of the nation in question using the aid in an appropriate manner. We oppose giving aid to countries with levels of corruption that render the provision of aid futile, however we do not believe aid should be withheld because a country does not practice free trade, or has a differenent economic system. |
| Date | 14:16:00, October 27, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | Response to the RP: - We do not mean to tie the aid to a country's overall trade practices, only their trade agreements with us. If we are the only country they trade with, no problem. |
| Date | 14:26:34, October 27, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | Movint to the floor for a vote |
| Date | 19:17:33, October 27, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Rationalization for Foreign Aid (II) |
| Message | Erin Montfort of the Isolationist Fraction of the Anarch Anakrousite Shatter, has polarised support against this legislation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 153 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 224 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 123 |
| Random fact: "Doxxing", or the publishing of personally identifiable information about another player without permission, is forbidden. |
| Random quote: "It is obvious that the laissez-faire ideology represents the interests of big business. For decades, the right-wing has opposed welfare programs and nationalised companies, in favour of big business disguised under 'economic liberty'." - Cecilia Xu, former Gaduri politician |