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: Right to gamble
Details
Submitted by[?]: Catholic Peoples Party
Status[?]: passed
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: November 2053
Description[?]:
| Whereas some regions in our nation have more liberal standards than others, we feel that more conservative regions should be able to ban gambling. |
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, but only in private homes and casinos with special licences.
Proposed: The legality of gambling is a matter of local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:40:26, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Christian Social Union | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | This endorsement of federalism has our support. |
| Date | 15:21:18, May 16, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | so what about the people living in the regions that want to ban it? are they supposed to give up their pasttimes because their neighbors don't like it? if you don't want to gamble, and think it is wrong, then don't gamble. but don't impose your outdated beliefs on the people who don't believe it. let the people be free to make their own decisions about their own lives. we're a government, not a babysitter. |
| Date | 15:41:35, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Catholic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | Local elections will put the right people into office to judge on this issue. The forwardists might think banning gambling is outdated, we think that they don't respect the voters. The argument you give can be turned backward toward our point of view, but we think its more important to put to the attention that this is not a bill to illegalize gamblimg, it is a bill to put the power to the people. |
| Date | 19:18:54, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | "We're a government, not a babysitter" We concur fully with our comrades in the NFP! We are not babysitters to the people, therefor this MUST be made a local issue as suggested by the CPP. |
| Date | 22:08:30, May 16, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | no, it must be left to the individual people whether to gamble or not. leave the option open to everyone, and if they have something against gambling, it's completely up to them. if your neighbor feels that there is something wrong with spending your money in one way instead of another, what right does he have to ban you from doing it? leaving it legal leaves the choice with the individual people. banning it, nationwide or within each region, only acts to limit the individual's rights to decide what they do with their money. the national government is not here to watch your wallet, and neither are the communal governments. |
| Date | 22:10:40, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | Gambling hurts the economy, and can become an addiction. Regardless as you said, the national government is not here to watch their wallet, but the communal governments may do whatever the local voters say they can do, and if they want them to watch their wallets, then that is what they will do. |
| Date | 22:59:20, May 16, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | The local governments have no more business telling the people what is good for them than the national government does. if your neighbor decides that you should stop doing what you love, even if it does not hurt them or anyone else, would you consider that fair? people who have a problem with gambling can make the decision to not gamble. but that decision applies to them, and them only. and how does gambling hurt the economy? last time i checked, hundreds of thousands of people were employed by various gambling-related activities. everything from the communal lotteries to the janitor at the local casino. if you allow the people who don't like gambling for whatever reason impose their views on the people who find gambling an enjoyable and entertaining experience, not only are you not protecting the individual's right to decide what is best for themselves, you are putting hundreds of thousands of people out of employment. |
| Date | 00:13:35, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | But NFP, what if an entire commune doesn't like to gamble? What if, oh, 80% of the population is against it. Should the 20% minority get their way? This is best left to local elections. |
| Date | 00:30:54, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | Gambling contributes nothing to the economy. It creates nothing. It is a black hole. Furthermore, a local government is closer to the people and the people have much more say in what goes on, a local government is much more democratic. Therefor rather then allow it everywhere, the local governments should be allowed to decide the matter. |
| Date | 00:33:06, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Catholic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | hear, hear! |
| Date | 01:35:48, May 17, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | it creates nothing? how about jobs? it creates at least as much as any other form of entertainment. |
| Date | 01:59:14, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | Yes but those forms of entertainment are not addictive. Movies are not addictive. Television is not addictive. Video games, though some may claim otherwise, are not addictive. However, it is a proven fact that gambling IS addictive, because the prospect of there always being a chance you can win becomes too much for the average persons willpower. What this does then, is create a vacuum on the poorest people, who are the most desperate to acheive success. They see gambling as their "only hope" and so they squander away all their money on gambling. Which contributes nothing to our economy. It is not like a movie because a movie's revenue goes to a film company and an actors guild and other trained professionals, people go to a movie to be entertained, only the rich gamble for entertainment. |
| Date | 02:51:30, May 17, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | that is in no way true. i know personally many people who are by no means righ, but gamble because they find it enjoyable. and the money spent on gambling does not disappear into some giant space vortex forever. it goes into the pockets of the employees at the casinos. it goes to the pockets of the people at the manufacturing companies that make the slot machines and playing cards. it goes into the pockets of the companies that ship the machines from the manufacturer to the casino it goes into the pockets of the investors who buy shares of stock in the casinos i don't exactly consider that a drain on the economy. |
| Date | 02:58:07, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | Casino's don't sell stock. You may claim to know some people who claim to do something for enjoyment or whatever, but the fact still remains that gambling acts as a black hole on the lowest classes, sucking away their wages. Rather then spend money on food, they weigh the chance that they might actually win, and thus...*poof* there goes the food budget... |
| Date | 12:30:16, May 17, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | if they want to spend their money on gambling instead of food, that is their responsability. for their sake, i hope they don't, but the government is not here to tell the people what to do with their lives. |
| Date | 13:45:49, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | Why? If the people are THAT stupid and our government does nothing, are we even worthy of governing them? If we were to sit back and WATCH our population starve to death because they wasted their money on casinos and do NOTHING, then we aren't worthy of governing them. Not just that, we aren't even worthy of LIFE. |
| Date | 15:20:36, May 17, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | better to be free to make stupid mistakes then be slaved and have all the stupid mistakes made for you. i'm amazed that the 'libertarian' party is voting in favor of a bill that brings the government right down into people's lives, and tells them exactly what they can and cannot do with their own money. it sickens me to see so little trust in the average citizen that you will not let them make their own decisions. |
| Date | 21:43:18, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | The NFP is officially retarded. If we could get away with it, we would propose legislation that their right to vote be stripped and they be disbanded, as they apparently lack the ability to read. This legislation will STRIP THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF DECIDING THE MATTER AND MAKE IT A DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. STRIPPING THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF POWER AND GIVING IT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IS THE CAUSE OF LIBERTARIANISM. Thank you, now return to the hole you crawled out of so us adults can continue fixing this country. |
| Date | 22:29:57, May 17, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | so apparently, the AELP would rather have us split into five countries. after all, he's doing everything within his power to neuter the federal government. apparently, protecting the citizen's rights is not a matter for the federal government. local citizens should have the power to remove all rights from the rest of the people how silly of me to forget :rolls eyes: oh, and another thing: disbanding political parties can only fall under one category: fascist dictatorship. good job on that one, 'libertarians' |
| Date | 22:45:07, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Right to gamble |
| Message | The people voiced their opinion on the NFP's policies in the last election, and we expect them to voice that same opinion in the upcoming elections. A perfect society would be that of thousands of city-states working together in confederal status. We will acheive that one day, but for now, we must work with what we have. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 336 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 172 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "Hunger makes a thief of any man." - Pearl S. Buck |