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: The Family Friendly Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Party
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: April 2155
Description[?]:
| We believe the following modest changes are something to be welcomed in Likatonia. It reflects our beliefs and commitment to modest refom in Likatonia. Adoption: By making it easier to adopt, more children shall find good homes. I don't think there can be serious objection to such a thing? Public Nudity: This isn't something that should be practised in public, public spaces are for general use. We would welcome nudists who take their business elsewhere, into their homes or specially built communities. This sort of thing just does not belong around our schools, beaches, and parks. Positive Discrimination: We believe that this well-intentioned law restricts foundations set up by a community from hiring members from its own community or expending their own money to set up businesses that could provide minorites with experience and build wealth. We're interested in seeing to it that these efforts do not get frustrated by a monstrous uncaring bureaucracy. Please join us in support of all these propositions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption is strictly regulated by the government. Only by passing several tests and by following an intensive program applicants can adopt children.
Current: Regulation is used to screen out only those with a previous history of child abuse.
Proposed: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.
Old value:: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Current: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.
Proposed: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: No form of positive discrimination is permitted.
Current: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Proposed: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:01:36, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the The Family Friendly Reform Act |
| Message | The AAS has some thoughts on each of these issues: Adoption: "By making it easier to adopt, more children shall find good homes"... thus sayeth the People's Party... and yet, at the moment, we have 'control' over the process, to ensure that the homes adopted children get put into ARE good homes. SInce we only filter out BAD homes.... how could removing THAT control mean MORE good homes? There are a finite number of homes and families that SHOULD be allowed to adopt. Removing the control mechanism is tantamount to admitting to adoptees "Hey, we don't CARE who adopts you, just so long as you get off OUR hands". The AAS opposes such cavalier action. Public Nudity: What is WRONG with public nudity? Our laws forbid consumation of sexual acts in the public arena, but many people see nothing wrong with the sight of a little exposed flesh. The average Likatonian citizen is far less 'Victorian' than the People's Party seems to believe. Why should we limit the Likatonian citizen's RIGHT to freedom, in this manner? Positive Discrimination: There IS NO SUCH THING as 'Positive Discrimination'. The minute you give a job to someone JUST BECAUSE of their skin colour, you are automatically DISCRIMINATING AGAINST another citizen, just for NOT being the 'right' race for your agenda. The current law means that ALL individuals are considered for jobs, EQUALLY, regardless of race or religion. The AAS demands a damn GOOD reason, why we should overturn a policy of equality in this fashion? |
| Date | 09:11:33, December 11, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the The Family Friendly Reform Act |
| Message | The People's Party would like to thank the AAS for their comments. We will get right down to addressing them one by one. Adoption: You said the PP's policy amounts to allowing any random person to come in and walk off with a kid. You moaned and groaned about how "bad homes" would not be checked now, that the govt would not protect kids. Yet you failed to produce any evidence that I suggested that bad homes would be allowed to adopt. This bill does nothing but simplify the regulation so that good homes can. Every home will be subject to a background test. The bad homes are automatically weeded out, as are the ones that are financially or socially unsuited for children, such as low income single parent households or homes with chronic substance abusers. Then the parents come in for an interview, and a debriefing about the child. This is a simple common-sense approach to a system that is notoriously bad right now. What is the point of making parents taking tests and filing tons of forms? You cannnot test compassion or love on some score sheet. Nor can you find out how the child might be treated by making the process and therfore yourself hostile to parents. In fact the way it is structured, the adoption program might be driving people away. People who want to adopt could actually find the system far too intimidating and too costly (think of that lawyers commission for filing those forms) and choose to go for their own babies instead. So thanks to your wonderful little bureaucracy, many children lose out on a normal childhood. I'm sure this is not what you intended... Nudity: Let us not pretend that values don't exist. Everyone prefers to live in a society where people are kind to one another, look out for each other and are sensitive towards others. However nobody wants to make the sacrifices that will get us there. Nudity is a selfish act, since it ignores the fact that other people have children who are too young to be exposed to this sort of thing. Nudists have a choice: they can be nude in their homes, lawns, bathrooms or at any private location. Families don't . Every public place, any road, bridge, restaurant, school or home can suddenly become an uncomfortable situation. There is no reason therfore for the Government to go on protecting nudity and claiming it as some god given right. Just like drinking, binging, smoking, prostitution and high speed racing, nudity has social consequences and therfore must be regulated and controlled. Positive Discrimination: Actually people have a right to spend their money in any way they wish as long as they don't endanger others. If a private foundation funded by black money wants to fund black students to go to college...who are we to say NO? If a black mother funds her own son- would that be discrimination against a white guy? If its not wrong on the individual level - its not wrong for groups. Now lets extend the analogy. Lets say somebody left his son a legacy, or hired his son to run the family business....would that be discrimantion against every other guy? Would you honestly say that instead of giving it to his son he oughta give it to every kid on earth in equal proportion? If you can't justifiably make that case, then there can't be anything wrong with with groups of people doing this on their own, as long as everyone agrees and those who don't can take their money and go someplace else. |
| Date | 09:24:55, December 11, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the The Family Friendly Reform Act |
| Message | Also AAS- in future please refrain from making exagerrated claims about the views of the 'average' Likatonian. Unless you have surveys telling you exactly what Likatonians think about every issue - there is no way you can figure out whether they are as '"Victorian" as me or not. So please refrain from making stuff up. Just curious...why is it that when it comes to personal morality - you talk about freedom, but when it comes to the choice of religion or pension plans suddenly there is no room for freedom? |
| Date | 21:40:20, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the The Family Friendly Reform Act |
| Message | Response to the People's Party: Adoption: You say that people might have their own children... as though that were a bad thing? You say people might not adopt because it's too expensive... the AAS says "Good!" iF SOMEONE CAN'T afford to adopt, we can't expect them to be comfortably able to care for a child, can we? Oh, the AAS agrees that the IMPORTANT thing is the love of a good family.... but being able to FEED and CLOTHE them is important, too. By removing levels of control, it is logical that the process becomes LESS selective. Does this mean that children WILL end up in bad homes? Not necessarily... but the CHANCES of that eventuality LEAP with every safeguard you remove. Nudity: The AAS does not accept the People's Party assertion that nudity is harmful. Many civilisations have flourished with partial, or full nudity. The People's Party really is only thinking in terms of post-victorian western-culture, and cultures influenced by it. How are children too young to see nudity? Does the People's Party perhaps think babies are born in packets? It only SEEMS shocking to consider public nudity BECAUSE we have made showing skin taboo. Positive Discrimination: There is no logic to the claim "If its not wrong on the individual level - its not wrong for groups". What about sex? What about marriage? What about imprisonment? The People's Party is invoking a 'universal truth' where there IS none. The AAS simplifies it to ONE question... should a company be ALLOWED to hire a less-qualified, less-able person, PURELY because of their skin colour? |
| Date | 22:22:12, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the The Family Friendly Reform Act |
| Message | Response to the People's Party... the AAS believes it can support it's claims that the average Likatonian is 'less Victorian', through the use of polls, and the results we have seen in opinion polls. A recent AAS poll showed the biggest 'civil freedom' peak at "moderate permissive", and showed 'permissive' attitudes outdistancing 'restrictive' attitudes by about 60% to 40%. Similarly, in terms of 'morality', the greatest spike is at "extreme progressive", and the spread of attitudes puts 'progressive' leading 'conservative' attitudes, by about 55% to 45%. So - the 'average' Likatonian tends towards a slightly freer morality, and a fairly liberal approach to civil freedoms. Regarding the second point the People's Party made - the AAS is a loose affiliation of smaller (often more extreme) factions. The AAS 'in general' is pro-freedoms, but certain factions may be far less open. Most of the time, AAS legislation (certainly since the break in coherency of 2131) will carry a 'Factional Agenda" title.... e.g. "Anarch Anakrousite Shatter Reform Bill - Red Dawn Agenda (iii)" (Note: for example, the Red Dawn Faction has been the 'socialist/statist' aspect of the AAS). So - if the AAS is seen to support limiting religious freedoms, it is probably the Militant Anarch Athiest Front, that has led the vote. If the AAS seems to limit freedoms in the other direction, it is likely the AAS is being heavily influenced by the Sacred Order Faction. OOC: That is just the way the AAP/AAS was conceptualised... it has actually hurt 'visibility' and 'coherency' several times. |
| Date | 12:54:52, December 12, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the The Family Friendly Reform Act |
| Message | Please note my post in the management bill- I have a final tomorrow...but i'll enclose my response after this week is one. Thanks for a good debate- I was wondering if there were any intelligient lefties around... |
| Date | 12:55:35, December 12, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the The Family Friendly Reform Act |
| Message | *that should have been - "after this week is done" |
| Date | 02:04:57, December 13, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the The Family Friendly Reform Act |
| Message | The AAS cannot support. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 81 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 218 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 201 |
| Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others. |
| Random quote: "I don’t have facts to back this up." - Herman Cain |