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: End Mandatory Recycling.
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: April 2160
Description[?]:
| Imposing mandatory recycling on the people and industry is a violation of the liberties of our people. The amount of money that the government spends on the current recycling policy is not worth the limited gains it receives , nor is it worth violating the civil liberties of the people. The money wasted in the current recycling policy could be diverted to a more meaningful program once this law is changed. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government-sponsored recycling programs.
Old value:: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Current: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Proposed: The government funds recycling facilities for public use.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:16:08, December 22, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the End Mandatory Recycling. |
| Message | Enforcing mandatory recycling is not the governments role. |
| Date | 14:30:55, December 22, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the End Mandatory Recycling. |
| Message | No, enforcing mandatory recycling is governments role otherwise there would be limited or no recycling. People are lazy. Business wants the cheapest answer. Enforced recycling guarantees that things that would otherwise be dumped in large quantities is recycled, saving both the environment and guaranteeing future resources. Enforcing recycling does no impinge on the rights of the people, rather it improves the quality of life for the people as a reasonable cost. This bill would lead to massive increases in waste being dumped, and we call upon all parties to vote against this foolish, short term thinking bill. |
| Date | 14:47:29, December 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the End Mandatory Recycling. |
| Message | I don't believe that once a government stops regulating or enforcing certain laws, and allows the people to act on their own, that all hell will suddenly break loose. People can do these things without a law telling them they have to. You said it improves the quality of life for people, so that is a incentive enough for them to voluntarily recycle. Have a little faith in people to function on their own, without the government regulating every minor details in peoples lives. |
| Date | 14:56:07, December 22, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the End Mandatory Recycling. |
| Message | I have faith inthe people to do whatever is easiest for them to do. As mentioned, people are lazy and look to the short term. In the short term there would be no reduction in quality of life, but 10, 20, 30 years in the future there would be, by which time it is to late. This is also not a minor detail in their lives, nor is it a minor detail for companies. If you were in the board of directors for a company and could slash expenditure by Xmillion per annum, with no immediate problems for you or the company, or you can maintain current spending levels, with the possibility of those spending levels increasing as you expand your business, which would you do? " I don't believe that once a government stops regulating or enforcing certain laws, and allows the people to act on their own, that all hell will suddenly break loose." - People, as already mentioned, are lazy. Why should they recycle a newspaper when they can just throw into a bin? Why should they be bothered to look whether their rubbish should be placed into a green recycling bin, or a brown standard bin? It doesn't effect them, and wouldn't it be easier to have just one bin? All hell wouldn't break loose immediately, but 50yrs down the line, it may well do and we can't allow someone to say "it's my right not to recycle" because it isn't. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 155 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 173 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 72 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln |