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: Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119
Details
Submitted by[?]: Beloved Freedom
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: November 3129
Description[?]:
| Save our economy from monopoly. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on energy generation.
Old value:: Small scale private electrical generation is permitted but most energy is generated by a government-owned company.
Current: All power stations are publicly owned.
Proposed: Private and public power stations exist side-by-side.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy is provided by nationalised companies.
Current: Energy is provided by private companies but the prices they can charge are regulated.
Proposed: Energy is provided by private companies but the prices they can charge are regulated.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Current: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Proposed: There is a national agency which exists side-by-side with commercial forestry companies.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards space exploration.
Old value:: The government shall fully fund a state-owned space agency which controls all national space-related activity.
Current: The government shall issue permits to private space-exploration companies.
Proposed: The government shall issue permits to private space-exploration companies.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The funding of sports clubs.
Old value:: All sports clubs are government owned and run.
Current: The government does not fund sports clubs; only private ones are allowed.
Proposed: The government funds some sports clubs side-by-side with private ones.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:43:11, May 12, 2011 CET | From |  Marxist-Leninist Party of Ikradon (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119 |
| Message | The state subcontracts duty to run the economy to Workers Cooperatives, there is no monoploys. |
| Date | 15:32:21, May 13, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119 |
| Message | We can not support, as this is a too-huge a step away of collectivism. |
| Date | 17:40:27, May 13, 2011 CET | From | Dark Templar (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119 |
| Message | we do not support |
| Date | 02:17:31, May 14, 2011 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119 |
| Message | None of these restrict any labor rights. If the firm is not nominally in state hands, then it will be under workers' ownership. We support this bill. |
| Date | 15:57:44, May 14, 2011 CET | From | Beloved Freedom | To | Debating the Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119 |
| Message | the Government subcontracts 'duty to run' the business to Workers Cooperative, but the Government owns all businesses. It is monopoly. Current law does say that all businesses to be run by Democratic Workers' Councils. therefore this bill is not "a too-huge a step away of collectivism", but a small step towards competition and diversity. There is no reason DWC cannot directly own the business. Isn’t it better that direct ownership of workers than subordination to Government subcontracts? |
| Date | 02:20:27, May 15, 2011 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119 |
| Message | "There is no reason DWC cannot directly own the business. Isn’t it better that direct ownership of workers than subordination to Government subcontracts?" Honestly, there would be no real difference under this new policy except that now multiple DWCs will be competing against each other instead of simply one DWC in the industry. That whole "state owned" thing has been discussed many times and it is simply regarded as a DWC-run monopoly in the industry. There is only a nominal state-run title with it, but it isn't really a subcontracting relationship. Imagine if all companies in an industry were merged and then they were given state-privilege to a monopoly: That is pretty much how we've decided what "state-owned" means in the presence of mandatory DWCs. |
| Date | 15:25:04, May 15, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119 |
| Message | Collectivism sees no need in competition, so naturally, any competition-driven economy is a huge step away from collectivism. |
| Date | 06:13:04, May 16, 2011 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119 |
| Message | Competition aids efficiency, even if all workers are in solidarity. A single source of supply tends to break down the Supply/Demand relationship.... As long as all companies are operated as DWCs, I feel this proposal would be beneficial overall to our economy. |
| Date | 18:54:37, May 31, 2011 CET | From | Social Democratic Party (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom Anti-Monopoly Act of September 3119 |
| Message | We can't support Articles 2 and 5 when they are together. We would support Article 2 alone, because as long as the government owns the electrical grid and power generation, the government can sell to many providers and ensure competition. But we can't support a private monopoly that could be created and is so much worse than a public monopoly. We would be strongly for Article 3; we shouldn't waste taxpayer funds on space exploration: Let private companies do it if it interests them. With Article 4, we wanted local governments to manage forest land; we don't want fox-in-the-henhouse forestry companies doing so. We like Article 1 and actually would take that one all the way and have sports clubs, clearly a luxury and not a necessity, all private. So we like more than we dislike about this bill, but Articles 4 and 5 kill it for us. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 296 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 318 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 136 |
| 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: "When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'" - Martin Luther King Jr. |