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: Fairness Reform Act (1)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Fair Capitalism 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: May 2056
Description[?]:
| A bill of sweeping reforms to make the nation fairer and safer for all. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to gamble.
Old value:: The legality of gambling is a matter of local governments.
Current: Gambling is illegal.
Proposed: Gambling is legal across the nation, no regulation whatsoever.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Adult individuals may not own firearms unless professionally required.
Current: Adult individuals are allowed to own and purchase guns freely.
Proposed: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:45:48, May 15, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | for 1 and 4 against others |
| Date | 21:57:53, May 15, 2005 CET | From |  Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | Ok, it's ready now. |
| Date | 22:41:56, May 15, 2005 CET | From | Alorian Communist Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | This sucks! I am in agreement with some of them but would have to vote no if this was ever put to a vote as I disagree with the vast majority of them. |
| Date | 00:50:02, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Aloria Green Socialist Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | I'm not keen on the nukes... |
| Date | 17:40:40, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | Right, here's my concessions and explanations: (If you have any further objections post and I'll elaborate.) 1) Home schooling, if regulated, is a completely valid method of teaching. 2) With the anti-abortion laws, this is a necessary addition, as without this encouragement to take contraception, there will be more unwanted pregnacies. 3) Gambling is a perfectly legitimate activity, and is too big an issue to be decided by local government. It is down to individuals to control their habit, and they should have the right to decided whther they want to take the 'risk' of starting gambling. I am willing to drop this article if necessary. 4) This would increase the rights of citizens, and allow them to participate in gun-based sports. Strict licensing conditions would ensure the safety of other citizens. 5) Again, the use of Cannabis in medicine is too large an issue for local governments, and citizens should have the choice as to wheher they want to take the potential risk Cannabis is thought to pose, or to use conventional medicines. 6) I am dropping this issue, I will put it through on a different bill soon. --- 6) This increases the choice of citizens, and taking burdens off the public education system. 7) This means larger regions, with more issues, get a respective increase in representation. 8)This would allow citizens to send their children to religious schools, rather than having to send them to a school where their beleifs are not recognised as much as they would like them to be. (Also, please don't just flame bills, they are here so you can comment on them. It would be justified if I had just put it to voting, but I am wanting this to pass, and will make concessions to allow this.) |
| Date | 17:41:35, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | By the way, former proposal 6 was the nuclear weaponary article. |
| Date | 18:30:46, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | I would recommend splitting this into separate issues, otherwise I would have to vote against. |
| Date | 19:12:48, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | Tell me which issues you object to. However, I must admit, this appears to be becomming a necessity. |
| Date | 01:21:49, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Aloria Green Socialist Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | I would definitely vote for this as it stands.. with all of my 24 seats ;-) |
| Date | 17:30:25, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | Anything else? |
| Date | 17:11:57, May 18, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | I've taken away articles already passed. |
| Date | 19:44:16, May 18, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | I am still against art. 2 (no subsidies if you ask me, insurance system covers prescriptions) and 3 (leave it to local government to decide - as currently) |
| Date | 23:24:58, May 18, 2005 CET | From | Alorian Communist Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | I am opposed to 1,5 and 7. Please, for the love of my athiest God, do these seperatly. Noone, except obviously you lol, will agree with everything on here so you might as well do them individually. |
| Date | 17:30:32, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | That I will then, it seems, have to do. |
| Date | 17:31:46, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | Will people, then, vote for this? |
| Date | 19:34:43, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | I will |
| Date | 11:17:24, May 21, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | Fine then, I'll move it through. |
| Date | 18:01:27, May 21, 2005 CET | From | Alorian Communist Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | I'm against proposal 1, but for proposal 2. So I'll abstain. |
| Date | 02:10:32, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | What happened to you abstaining, RCL? I think your newfound power has got to your head already. |
| Date | 17:40:44, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act (1) |
| Message | Ah, good. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 51 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 102 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 84 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous." - William Proxmire |