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: Saving the Defense Industries
Details
Submitted by[?]: Old School Liberal Party
Status[?]: passed
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: March 2147
Description[?]:
| Somehow we managed to earlier pass a partial nationalization of the defense industries. Seeing as how this shrinks innovation and could eventually result in a decreased quality of product (while also slowing the economy), we seek to reverse it. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Current: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Proposed: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:04:10, November 26, 2005 CET | From |  Grand National Party | To | Debating the Saving the Defense Industries |
| Message | Thanks for bringing this up. Our party was going to address this issue once our members met for their meeting. |
| Date | 00:50:54, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Kafuristan | To | Debating the Saving the Defense Industries |
| Message | The defence indurstries are not nationalised, you fool. Take the time to finish reading the descriptive sentence. We have a two-sector defence industry. We can not go bad with using both a reliable nationalised sector AND a greed-driven privatised sector. This way, if the government fails we have the private, and if the economy fails we have the government. A Delarian offence would not be able to halt our industry. |
| Date | 03:22:43, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Old School Liberal Party | To | Debating the Saving the Defense Industries |
| Message | I'm sorry? Did you call me a fool? After you failed to read the very, very important "partial" before "nationalization?" Next time you might want to think before speaking. I don't see why mixing things is the best solution. At all. There are some situations where a mix is good, but very rarely do such situations exist in production. I mean, come on, what good would it do to own a part of the defense industry if the economy suddenly implodes? Wouldn't we just temporarily nationalize the other half anyway? And couldn't nationalize all of it if it's all private? Exactly. We don't need part of it to be nationalized now; that's just a waste of valuable resources. |
| Date | 08:14:42, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Kafuristan | To | Debating the Saving the Defense Industries |
| Message | A waste of resources? You confirmed fool. No more spending goes into it, as the military is on a fixed budget until we vote to change it. Not to mention that the government does not charge the government more than the cost is, unlike certain companies who wish to make a profit. Mixing things gives inconsistency with reliability while in a large market, such as the entire military of Kafuristan. If everyone used the same product and the product had an undiscovered defect...then none would not have the defect. |
| Date | 13:40:39, November 27, 2005 CET | From | The Raging Bull Zealots of Zidine | To | Debating the Saving the Defense Industries |
| Message | It would be a waste of resources, as they would be used in production rather than recuitment/training/upkeep/transport etc. Lets not mention that public enterprises have higher costs of production than a private company, as there are no incentives to keep costs down and no competition. And that defect would be discovered long before it would be used in walfare. Thats why companys do tests. |
| Date | 06:10:02, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Kafuristan | To | Debating the Saving the Defense Industries |
| Message | USED IN PRODUCTION, AS OPPOSED TO BUYING FROM A CONGLOMERATION? Genius words, confirmed foolish Hasselhoffs. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 195 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 80 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 25 |
| Random fact: Culturally Open nations can adopt advisory/non-enforceable Nation Descriptions. See http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6242 |
| Random quote: "Man is by nature a political animal." - Aristotle |