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: Gambling regulation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Trigunian Social-Democratic Workers
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: June 2166
Description[?]:
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to gamble.
Old value:: Gambling is legal across the nation, no regulation whatsoever.
Current: Gambling is legal across the nation, no regulation whatsoever.
Proposed: Gambling is legal, but only in private homes and casinos with special licences.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:09:58, December 25, 2005 CET |
From |  Liberty Party | To | Debating the Gambling regulation | | Message | No. We do not accept that the vast majority of sensible, moderate gamblers should have their right to gamble stripped of them just because of a few addicts. You would not propose banning bars & pubs because some people are alcoholics, or would you? |
| Date | 23:55:23, December 25, 2005 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Gambling regulation | | Message | You are banning gambling in places that do not qualify for your special licenses. Presumably you will decide who gets a license, so you are in essence banning gambling except by people on whom you choose to bestow a special privilege. |
| Date | 12:23:42, December 26, 2005 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Gambling regulation | | Message | I would rather that addicted gamblers did not end up on welfare either, but I'm willing to accept that only a small percentage of gamblers will become problem gamblers. I'm not going to support giving authoritarians like you more power just because it *might* (but actually probably won't) help a few critical cases. |
| Date | 04:31:44, December 27, 2005 CET |
From | Trigunian Social-Democratic Workers | To | Debating the Gambling regulation | | Message | You support laws that give these powers to the state: A police to protect the state from within, a military to protect the state from without (and within) and all freedoms given to the private sector. I think it qualifies as a corporate police state. Who are you to call a party with no seats authoritarian? |
| Date | 11:03:14, December 27, 2005 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Gambling regulation | | Message | There wouldn't be much point in having a government if there wasn't a police force or military, now would there? How do you imagine you would enforce your rights without a police force? How do you imagine you would repel an attack on our nation without a military? We agree that there are certain risks to arming the state and giving it those powers, which is why we believe in strong constitutional limitations on the powers of government and why we believe in a right for the individual to bear arms.
As for freedoms 'given' to the private sector? Freedoms naturally exist with the private sector. And how is it a corporate police state when the state and the police are separate entities. It is the socialists who want to put the power over industry in the hands of the state along with the power of the military and police. That's why under capitalism, he who does not work does not eat; but under socialism, he who does not obey does not eat.
We are libertarians and we are not blind. We call you authoritarian because you believe in taking authority away from the individual (in whom it naturally resides) and giving to the state so that the state can control the individual. The fact that you have no seats does not stop you from being an authoritarian. There is no conflict between the ideology (you believe that the state should have all the power) and the reality (you currently have no power). |
| Date | 11:16:54, December 29, 2005 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Gambling regulation | | Message | Yes, remind me exactly how Marx proposed moving from socialism to communism. How did he plan to persuade the state to relinquish the power it had accumulated and then extinguish itself? |
| Date | 19:17:22, January 03, 2006 CET |
From | Radical New Party | To | Debating the Gambling regulation | | Message | Lenin is not Marx. That is a common misconception. Lenin added a major point to Marxism, that for socialism to be born, it would be from "bourgeois intelligentsia" not from the working-class. And in the true meaning of communism, no government in the world is. Propertyless and Marketless is true Communism. That crap in China and the former USSR is just different forms of Marxism and revisionist Socialism. "The People's Will" - sound like Red China? That's Lenin's philosophy. |
| Date | 23:44:46, January 04, 2006 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Gambling regulation | | Message | Ah yes Lenin. What a model leader he is. I particularly like his policies on terror, censorship, secret police, banning opposition political parties. With strategies like that we guaranteed a wonderful Soviet utopia. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 0 |
| no | Total Seats: 61 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 494 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules. |
| Random quote: "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes |