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: Flag Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertarian Party of Darnussia
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: May 2972
Description[?]:
| I just really don't see the logic behind making it criminal to desecrate a flag. We are a free nation; a free nation must maintain certian restrictions in order to stay prosperous/healthy, but I really don't think the criminalization of the desecration of the national flag does this in the least. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National policy regarding the desecration of the national flag.
Old value:: The national flag may not be desecrated or dishonoured.
Current: The national flag may not be desecrated or used for commercial purposes.
Proposed: There are no regulations regarding the desecration or use of the national flag.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:56:35, July 20, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | If a person dislikes our nation so much that they have to mess with the national symbol, to quote napoleon dynamites uncle, YOU CAN LEAVE!! |
| Date | 04:03:11, July 21, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Since when the fuck has messing with a symbol, whether it is largely considered to represent a nation or not, equal to messing with a nation itself in the same manner? Legally ... |
| Date | 04:04:37, July 21, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Its fucking bullshit is what it is; you have no rational argument for it. You just have this impulsive urge to force people to "respect the nation" by respecting its flag. |
| Date | 04:34:15, July 21, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Having a national flag that people can destroy for fun/demonstration defeats the purpose of having a flag at all. Dishonouring a flag mocks the nation and all of the great things it has achieved. |
| Date | 05:50:24, July 21, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | The purpose of having a flag? Mocks the nation? All of the great things it has achieved BESIDES the freedom it provides to the individuals that inhabit it? Sounds famaliar to me ... |
| Date | 15:05:01, July 21, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Elimination of the income tax; deregulation of business; federalism. These are all things that our nation has achieved that the Libertarian Party should think of next time it decides to have a flag burning party. When I refer to the great things achieved by the nation, I do not only mean the government. Our people have successfully established businesses, organizations and charities. These are all things to be proud of. Even if you disagree with the ideology of the government, I would assume you love your country. Why else would you be heading a political party so charged on changing it? You should be proud of the nation that allows you to do this and you should respect its flag. |
| Date | 16:52:08, July 21, 2010 CET | From | Rerum Novarum Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Point of Order contra the Libertarians. |
| Date | 13:26:42, July 22, 2010 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | The CPD proposes a night of flag burning in opposition to this oppressive and out-of-date law, and just to irritate the right. People of Darnussia. BURN THOSE FLAGS! |
| Date | 13:27:54, July 22, 2010 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | "all of the great things it has achieved" Darnussia actually havn't achieved anything great. If by great you mean big, then Darnussians have managed to wipe themselves out 5 or 6 times through countless civil wars and state-sponsered massacres. |
| Date | 20:49:31, July 22, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | I never said I have any desire to burn the nation's flag; I was simply pointing out the fact, of which you have still not and will not refute for the simple reason that it is indeed a fact, that there is no logical basis for outlawing the burning of a fucking flag. You just have this stick stuck up you craw that makes you want to tell people that they can't do certian things that in no way effect any other person or the nation, but instead only piss you off for some fucked up reason. |
| Date | 03:35:32, July 23, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Let me address this for you in terms you can understand: I am not supporting my position out of my own anger caused by people of lesser respect who insist on burning flags. I am doing this because of my own high respect for the nation. If I were to burn the LP flag, it would be an act of expression that would serve as an insult to you. While this is a weak way to protest, it should not be illegal because it is simply an insult. However, when one person resorts to burning the flag because they are too stupid to properly argue their point, not only are they creating a fire hazard, but they are also insulting the other 660,327,369 people of the nation. They are insulting war veterans. They are insulting the FREEDOM that this nations has achieved. If one dislikes the nation that much, they should really get out. That answer your question? |
| Date | 03:55:05, July 23, 2010 CET | From | Christian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | We agree completely with the Paleofederalists. Also, it is highly recommended the Libertarian Party ceases its childish potty mouthing and begin debating like an adult, lest they wish to be seen as an ignorant child as well as reported for disrespect. There's already another debate started by the Communist Party regarding this. |
| Date | 06:22:28, July 23, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | hahahahahahaha "In terms that I understand"; thats funny; trust me, your political views are not in the least bit misunderstood (by me) If you want to call it"Out of respect for the nation" you go right ahead and do that. What you just wrote only further proves the point I was making eariler; you just don't like it when people disrespect the nation, verterans, or whatever else you use to give yourself a sense of identity. It doesn't seem to be the case for you, but for me, my nation is only as valuable as the freedom it provides me. If my nation doesn't provide me (or the other people in it) freedom, but instead is simply a title or symbol that has been perverted into meaning freedom when infact it has nothing to do with the concept, it has lost its value. You can throw around words all you want, but the meaning of words constantly changes; I'll stick with retaining the actualy liberty (liberty as in the ability to make ones own decisions without coercion from some arbitary force). If I want to respect anything, it will be the freedom that veterans have died for, not some symbol/title that represents something that overtime could represent the exact opposite of freedom. Your reasoning is filled with fallacies. Freedom must comes with the ability to choose what is wrong; not the coercing to do what you consider to be right. |
| Date | 06:46:53, July 23, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | "We agree completely with the Paleofederalists. Also, it is highly recommended the Libertarian Party ceases its childish potty mouthing and begin debating like an adult, lest they wish to be seen as an ignorant child as well as reported for disrespect. There's already another debate started by the Communist Party regarding this." Well if only I was as an incisive and mature debater as you ... |
| Date | 14:43:38, July 23, 2010 CET | From | Rerum Novarum Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | OOC: Our generation is probably the most symbolically illiterate generation ever. This may also be part of the reason behind the popularity of Robert Langdon from Brown's DaVinci Code (mind you that people also love it because the world lusts after scandal and also Brown is nearly more illiterate symbolically than the average man.) It's also a reason why so many of our buildings are so bland. Even our art (it may have cost over $1,000,000 but a pole with 2 bends in it is -not- art) is at best, lazy and vague and at worst absolutely meaningless. So I cannot blame the LPD for being illiterate, I'm just talking about my g-g-generation. |
| Date | 16:30:24, July 23, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | "my nation is only as valuable as the freedom it provides me" Discipline without freedom is tyranny, freedom without discipline is chaos. The rule of law states that laws are necessary. If we have a system of absolute freedom like you advocate, with everything from murder to rape being legal, our civilization will collapse. Do you feel that having unlimited freedom will give you the best possible nation to live in? If freedom is directly proportional to the value of one's nation, shouldn't we be able to do whatever we want? “If I want to respect anything, it will be the freedom that veterans have died for” And what flag was on their shoulders? Ours. Most veterans would rip you a new one for dishonouring the flag that they fought for. “Your reasoning is filled with fallacies.” List me the fallacies. “Freedom must comes with the ability to choose what is wrong; not the coercing to do what you consider to be right” Well, I guess we should let murderers and rapists decide what is right or wrong and let them decide what to do. YOUR argument is the one that is lacking. Instead of making constructive arguments, you simply refer back to your "freedom is good" rhetoric. |
| Date | 23:12:48, July 23, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | I do not support a system of absolute freedom; the way I worded that may not have been the best, but that it is not what I meant. I was simply pointing out that my nation is not valuable to me simply because it is "my nation". It is valuable to me if it provides me freedom. When it starts encroaching on areas where it should not be encroaching, it starts to lose its value. So the first paragraph of you comment is irrelevent because I infact do NOT support a system of absolute freedom. I first and foremost believe that anything that violates the equal rights to life, liberty, and property of anyone else should be enforced as "illegal" by the state. And that is not the limit to which I think the government should be able to regulate; there are other areas that could be necessary that with thought I might and might not come up with; hence the reason I am not one believes in applying strict libertarianism as a public policy, but rather to take issues as they come and look at them objectively. Situations could easily arise where it would be necessary for the state to take action. I support a competitive market, and when there are situations where if the government were to take action, competition would improve, I would likely support that government action. I am not saying I am 100% against any social or economic planning; just that if we are to use any of the two, that we should make sure we carefully examine all of the effects of such actions to ensure they do not lead us in directions where ultimately, we do not want to go. A veteran woudn't rip me a new one, because if he tried to attack me, he would be wishing he hadn't very soon afterwards. And I don't give a shit what anyone, including veterans, thinks. So this part of your comment is also irrelevent. You are guilty of the fallacy of stating that you want to respect the freedom of the nation by actively restricting it. And again, irrelevent. |
| Date | 23:16:13, July 23, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | OCC: You may have the impression that I support a system of absolute freedom my previously held views eariler on in the game; since that time my views have changed. |
| Date | 23:24:53, July 23, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | OCC: Not that I did support a system of absolute; just that my views were more strictly libertarian without the understanding of why or why not, than they are currently. |
| Date | 03:58:54, July 24, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | "Our generation is probably the most symbolically illiterate generation ever. This may also be part of the reason behind the popularity of Robert Langdon from Brown's DaVinci Code (mind you that people also love it because the world lusts after scandal and also Brown is nearly more illiterate symbolically than the average man.) It's also a reason why so many of our buildings are so bland. Even our art (it may have cost over $1,000,000 but a pole with 2 bends in it is -not- art) is at best, lazy and vague and at worst absolutely meaningless. So I cannot blame the LPD for being illiterate, I'm just talking about my g-g-generation." What the fuck are talking about? |
| Date | 13:57:09, July 24, 2010 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | So ultimately, this is a suppression of our freedom of speech... |
| Date | 22:09:10, July 24, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Yes; I would contend so. |
| Date | 04:38:07, July 25, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Burning a flag is not speech. By this logic, any public expression is speech. |
| Date | 11:39:25, July 25, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | First of all, there is nothing in this law about anything being "public". Secondly, and more importantly, yes, any public expression is speech, so long as it does not violate the equal rights of other people. |
| Date | 11:42:15, July 25, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | or does not violate the law; and as I have pointed out, there is no logical basis for making it against the law to burn the national flag. |
| Date | 16:11:10, July 26, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Then you failed to read my posts. Freedom of Expression ≠ Freedom of speech |
| Date | 07:31:29, July 27, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | straw man; freedom of speech and freedom of expression may not be equal to eachother, but freedom of speech is an aspect of freedom of expression. |
| Date | 15:25:06, July 27, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | So technically you are right, but that was not even what was being debated. You just decided to divert the argument into something where actually have the ability to defend your position; like the technical use of the phrase "free speech". |
| Date | 17:36:58, July 27, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Flag burning is not an a matter of freedom of speech (which is in the constitution) but rather an act of freedom of expression (NOT in our constitution). This is NOT a suppression of any fundamental freedoms because expression is not a fundamental freedom. Expression includes such things as exposing your naked body in public. I am not diverting anything. I am rebutting your and the CPD's statement that this is a suppression of the freedom of speech. You, sir, got us onto this topic. |
| Date | 23:08:03, July 28, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Then you should of made clear that you were referring to the fact that the current constitution of Darnussia does not guarantee, in its list of rights, the freedom of expression. The fact that you never mentioned that, of which the reason I am still having trouble believing was simply because you didn't feel the need to give those details, but infact because that isn't what you meant originally; you just now are saying that is what you were referring to in order to defend your original statment, lead me to make the assumption, and rightfully so, that you were simply continuing our debate on the ethical issue of freedom expression; not what the Constitution officially guarantees. |
| Date | 23:17:56, July 28, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | And I don't think absolutely any kind of public expression should be legal; just so that is out of that way and you don't go making more false assumptions about my political views. |
| Date | 18:00:16, July 29, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | I have made my arguments clearly. I added the constitution bit just further enforce. I thought you would like it. Guess not. |
| Date | 00:17:56, July 30, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | You haven't made your arguments cleary because you have constantly changed the basis upon which your position stands. |
| Date | 15:54:17, July 31, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | I have re-read over them and they are quite clear. I have presented many different arguments. You have recycled the same one over and over. |
| Date | 21:02:29, July 31, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | My argument is consistent in that I have constantly pointed out facts that you in no way refuted throughout the whole argument. You just refuse to acknowledge the fact that you know I am right. You presented many different arguments because you were constantly diverting the debate away from what was actually being argued. |
| Date | 01:49:15, August 03, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | Your argument was consistantly recylced and substanceless. If I thought you were right, I would have said so. And a debating tip: having multiple arguments helps. |
| Date | 05:04:17, August 04, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | You can keep telling yourself whatever you want; the fact of the matter is you still have not refuted my simple point that there is no logical basis for outlawing the burning of the national flag. I do not need to have more than one argument because have still not done anything that in anyway proves my original contention false. |
| Date | 03:42:17, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | I'm sorry you feel that way. |
| Date | 07:31:31, August 23, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | To begin with; throughout the whole arguement, the only you answers you could muster up in response to my contention that there is no logical basis for outlawing the burning of the national flag were that is insults people, creates a fire hazard, and "insults" freedom (whatever the hell that means). ''However, when one person resorts to burning the flag because they are too stupid to properly argue their point, not only are they creating a fire hazard, but they are also insulting the other 660,327,369 people of the nation. They are insulting war veterans. They are insulting the FREEDOM that this nations has achieved. If one dislikes the nation that much, they should really get out." That is the only arguement you presented. What I really have to ask you is why should someone who "dislikes the nation" enough that they would actually burn it's flag, "get out" of the country? |
| Date | 07:34:41, August 23, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Flag Act |
| Message | And I know that you made a lot more posts that what I have quoted. I am referring to your posts that actually delt with the original contention presented by me when I made this bill, and the one I quoted is the only one that fits such criteria. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 71 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 104 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner." Aristophanes (450 BC - 388 BC), Knights, 424 B.C. |