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: Private Monument Freedom Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: October 2150
Description[?]:
| This bill uses government funds but relies on the private sector to maintain vital historical and important parks and monuments. This makes more sense than direct government involvement, as it allows for the growth of small companies, and increases employment . The funds are available for the projects and specialized professional industry maintains and upkeeps historical land and sites that is more efficient and professional than government workers. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National, cultural and historic sites and monuments.
Old value:: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Current: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Proposed: The state encourages and funds private efforts towards the protection of cultural and historical heritage.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:47:23, November 26, 2005 CET | From |  We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Private Monument Freedom Act. |
| Message | How does the State paying private, for profit, companies improve the upkeep of historical and cultural sites? Government employed workers, operating within the HHCS, would be the same people doing the work so there would be no improvement in service, but now those workers would have to not only answer to the Government who would require them to do the work, but also to their direct private employers who could very well overlook important historical areas that would attract few visitors and so generate less income instead spending increasing amounts of money on areas that would generate higher returns. The private sector should not be directly involved in protecting historical sites, and should they choose to be then they should not expect to have the Government pay for their imvolvement. |
| Date | 23:27:58, November 26, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Private Monument Freedom Act. |
| Message | Cultural and historic sites are vital for cultivated and maintaining a strong civic culture. As such, it is the duty of the state to take care of our nation's history. We cannot support. |
| Date | 15:44:09, November 30, 2005 CET | From | Deltarian Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Private Monument Freedom Act. |
| Message | Wont this just add middle men? The government will still be putting forward funding. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 179 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 221 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The forum contains a lot of useful information, it has updates to the game, role playing between nations, news and discussion. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "All this concern with the effects of global warming is another manifestation of being politically correct." - David Young |