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: Ecology Bill of 2147
Details
Submitted by[?]: Classical 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: April 2149
Description[?]:
| A BILL TO... Lessen regulations on Telamon's people. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of endangered animals.
Old value:: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep endangered animals; all other forms of keeping or trading in endangered animals are forbidden.
Current: Keeping endangered animals, or trading therein, is forbidden.
Proposed: Everyone may keep endangered animals, but the trade in, and the ownership of, endangered animals is strictly regulated by the government to prevent their extinction in the wild.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning private cars.
Old value:: Only cars using environmentally friendly fuels are allowed.
Current: Only cars using environmentally friendly fuels are allowed.
Proposed: Private cars are allowed, but people are encouraged to travel collective and tax incentives are provided for cars using environmentally friendly fuels.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:40:01, November 28, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | I only definitley agree to #2 #1, is just to keep track of litte suzys doggy. #3, I might agree to that...not so sure yet. #4, No...i can't agree to that. Too dangerous, there's always the chance, that someones pet tiger...or bear or something can escape, or hurt an innocnet bystander by his house. |
| Date | 23:21:30, November 28, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | I can agree with #3 |
| Date | 03:25:46, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | 3 has my full support but i disagree to everything else |
| Date | 03:39:32, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Anti-Ownership Federation Party | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | i disagree to everything.... why do cars with environmentally friendly fuels bother you???? |
| Date | 04:51:40, November 29, 2005 CET | From |  Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | 1 and 2 yes 3 maybe 4 no, its fine as it is |
| Date | 13:52:51, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Classical Party | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | 3 has got to be the vaguest law ever. What constitutes an environmentally friendly fuel? Oil is in abundance in telamon, so why not use it. |
| Date | 14:48:56, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | Environmentally friendly I read as less damaging than oil. ie.biofuels, hybrids, electric |
| Date | 18:55:43, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Classical Party | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | If you mean global warming, then no such link has been made between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming. When Mt. Pinotubo exploded, it released more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of the emisions released by automobiles ever. Sure global warming is occuring, but you cant link it to fossil fuel emisions. |
| Date | 22:07:43, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Classical Party | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | took away 1 and 4. Now where does everybody stand on passage? |
| Date | 03:15:02, November 30, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | Still a no on #1 |
| Date | 03:36:36, November 30, 2005 CET | From | Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Ecology Bill of 2147 |
| Message | Looks ok |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 151 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 85 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 19 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does, if that catch-phrase has any meaning, but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is justice." - Ayn Rand |