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: Lives Without Fear Act, amended
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Democratic 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: December 2157
Description[?]:
| Crime rates are maximum in four of Indrala's five States. The human toll is horrendous. Something drastic must be done. We will allow people to establish gated communities for increased safety. They will be regulated to prevent discrimination or the formation of enclaves. We propose devolving police powers to the local authorities. Local authorities have a much higher incentive to deliver security to local communities than the remote central government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning gated communities.
Old value:: No gated communities are allowed.
Current: The private sector can set up gated communities.
Proposed: The private sector can set up gated communities.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the organization of police/law enforcement
Old value:: There is a national police department, funded by the government.
Current: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Proposed: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:19:58, December 13, 2005 CET | From | idek Party | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | We disagree, the situation is out of control. However, we feel that the local government should be empowered first. Policing is not something we want to put into the private sector right away as it is far too easy for economic concerns to get in the way of public safety. |
| Date | 22:50:34, December 13, 2005 CET | From | Conscientious Citizen's Party | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | We agree with the idek party. Should poor neighborhoods get inferior policing because they can't provide money to politicians' coffers enough for them to equalize policing? |
| Date | 00:37:16, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Populist Islamic Workers' League | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | We agree; this is not the solution. The solution is more education, more socialism, and less religion. |
| Date | 01:25:07, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Radical Democratic Party | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | In response to the NWP's objection, it is the central government that will competitively subcontract security management. It will be paid out of national, not local, taxes. It is up to the government to ensure that resources are distributed fairly and efficiently. In our opinion, police should focus on the highest-crime areas, which tend to be the poorest. |
| Date | 00:59:05, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Inrala Panjoregu Kiokutou (DPP) | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | We would support article two if it were a standalone bill, but we are totally opposed to the death penalty, and believe that the police should remain a national department. Therefore, we are opposed to this proposal. |
| Date | 01:34:55, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Radical Democratic Party | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | Given the opposition of the other parties, we withdraw the article regarding the death penalty. Article two becomes article one. Article one becomes article two. In our current circumstances of runaway criminality, we still believe that introducing the death penalty, with all due process protections, is far better than allowing extra-judicial killings by police and vigilantes, as happens at present. We note the incoherence of the other parties, who are willing to kill suspected thiefs with armed policemen, but won't touch vicious killers who have been duly convicted. |
| Date | 01:35:53, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Radical Democratic Party | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | Should have written "article three becomes article two". |
| Date | 06:08:33, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Inrala no Ikolowagitou (Green) | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | The content of the bill reveals the cynicism of the title. These provisions would institutionalise fear, not reduce it. We will have no truck with this divisive nonsense. |
| Date | 07:45:25, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Radical Democratic Party | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | The Green Party is right, as always. The situation in four out of five states in Indrala: Police: "The police are poorly funded and fitted with extremely outdated equipment, the result of which is that they are almost completely useless as a police force. Vigilante posses and criminal gangs patrol the streets in their absence." Crime: "Criminality is soaring. Multinational corporations are considering moving to other regions because of it. Shopkeepers are afraid to open their shops and even the police is afraid to enter almost every neighbourhood because they might get assaulted." But remember, the priority is to avoid divisiveness! |
| Date | 10:50:16, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Inrala Panjoregu Kiokutou (DPP) | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | We repeat that we will only support the gated communities act as a standalone bill. |
| Date | 10:12:42, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | Remove the "v.2", it makes it sound like a computer program. We would support this if Article 2 were amended to allow for a federal police department. |
| Date | 14:11:02, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Inrala no Ikolowagitou (Green) | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | Gated communities are not the answer. You claim "They will be regulated to prevent discrimination or the formation of enclaves." Yet enclaves is what they are by their very nature. They also discriminate between those on the inside and those on the outside. Yet again the rhetoric fails to match the actualities of the proposal. We do not think that article 2 will prove particularly effective, but see no great harm in it either. It would be worth a try. We cannot support it in conjuction with gated communities, however. |
| Date | 20:20:06, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Inrala Panjoregu Kiokutou (DPP) | To | Debating the Lives Without Fear Act, amended |
| Message | Due to amendments to the bill, we now pledge our full support of it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 105 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 170 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 25 |
| Random fact: In general, role-play requires the consent of all players. |
| Random quote: "Socialism failed because it couldn't tell the economic truth; capitalism may fail because it couldn't tell the ecological truth." Lester Brown, Fortune Brainstorm Conference, 2006 |