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: Marketplace Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Democrats
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: June 2836
Description[?]:
| Article 1: Although the working hours of a employee can be an issue, the DPR feel that is down to the employer, employee and relevant trade unions to decide on these matters. Article 2: Speaks for itself. Article 3: Speaks for itself also. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to gamble.
Old value:: The legality of gambling is a matter of local governments.
Current: The legality of gambling is a matter of local governments.
Proposed: Gambling is legal, but only in private homes and casinos with special licences.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to the production of pornography.
Old value:: Local governments establish policies on the production of pornography.
Current: The production of pornography is treated as any other business.
Proposed: The production of pornography is treated as any other business.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:32:55, October 21, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Marketplace Act |
| Message | We can certainly support Article 1. We sympathize with the sentiment behind Article 2, but we would prefer that local governments continue to be responsible for this matter, as they have in the past. There has been no problem in the way in which they have dealt with gambling, and they are more capable than the federal government in reflecting the interests and concerns of local communities. We certainly do not see gambling as an issue of national concern. We oppose Article 2 - we do not believe pornography should be recognized as a legitimate 'business', but we are more than content for local governments to resolve this issue themselves on behalf of their communities. Once again, this is not an issue of national concern. |
| Date | 01:35:22, October 21, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Marketplace Act |
| Message | We oppose Article 1. We find the description the DPR gave of the bill to be perfect and we wonder why "The government obligates Trade Unions and Employers to negotiate the daily number of working hours" was not proposed as it seems to fit much better. We initially opposed Article 2 as we believe gambling should be legal. I would appreciate to hear the thoughts of the honourable senators at DPR as to why they believe it should be illegal outisde of casinos with special licenses or private homes. We shall make our decision in due course. We can support Article 3. |
| Date | 02:22:12, October 21, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Marketplace Act |
| Message | We do not want to obligate anyone to do anything when regarding these matters. If an employee is unhappy with his work hours he can speak to his trade union or simply refuse to work at that company. The government should not obligate the conflict between employers and the trade unions, it should be a mutual thing. This legislation does not discriminate against the employee, the power is in the employees hands. |
| Date | 02:29:10, October 21, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Marketplace Act |
| Message | And regarding Article 2: This is the closest we will get to legalizing gambling. The other option is to legalize it with no restrictions... We decided this was not a viable and safe option. |
| Date | 02:41:58, October 21, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Marketplace Act |
| Message | There are plenty of instances when what you propose - with regards to working hours - is dangerous. Take long distance truck driving for example. Often the drivers will work as many hours as possible to earn as much money for the company who are very pleased they have such a commited worker. It's only after the driver falls asleep at the wheel and crashes into a family estate car that the government wonders if it should have stepped in a bit earlier to legislate against these sort of things. "The government should not obligate the conflict between employers and the trade unions, it should be a mutual thing" - I'm not really sure what this means. There does not have to be a conflict in the discussions. By removing the power from the trade unions you leave it open for the employers to exploint the worker. |
| Date | 03:01:27, October 21, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Marketplace Act |
| Message | Article 1 removed. |
| Date | 03:23:58, October 21, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Marketplace Act |
| Message | Why is it not viable or safe to have legalised gambling? |
| Date | 03:26:10, October 21, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Marketplace Act |
| Message | with no restrictions? Actually, that was the original Article... Legal with no restrictions, but we decided against it. |
| Date | 07:20:42, October 21, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Marketplace Act |
| Message | Whether gambling is 'safe' or 'viable' is not the only important consideration - it is a destructive, cancerous plague on the cities it infects; it attracts organized crime, as well as causing addiction that can cause gamblers to steal thousands to support their habits; it is specifically designed to rob the weak-willed and addicted of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars, which is virtually tantamount to fraud. The only benefit of legal gambling is its economic effects, which is outweighed by all of its other corrupting and criminal elements. We find it interesting that gambling is the one thing the LDP do not want to regulate, when they adament in their efforts to hand total control of schools, hospitals, the economy itself - and virtually everything else that could be left to the discretion of local governments or the private sector - to the federal government. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 128 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 177 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
| Random quote: "It will be years, not in my time, before a woman will become Prime Minister." - Margaret Thatcher |