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: Free Markets Act, 2166
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Imperialist 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: July 2168
Description[?]:
Feel free to submit proposals for the ammendment of this bill. I sill split articles out as requested. Sufficient time will be allocated to debate all articles. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National, cultural and historic sites and monuments.
Old value:: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Current: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Proposed: The state does not undertake any action towards the protection of cultural and historical heritage.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The research and development of pharmaceutical drugs.
Old value:: The government subsidizes research and development of prescription drugs but does not regulate their prices.
Current: The government subsidizes research and development of prescription drugs and regulates their prices.
Proposed: The government neither subsidizes research and development of drugs nor regulates their prices.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of exotic animals.
Old value:: Everyone may keep exotic animals, but the trade in exotic animals is regulated by the government.
Current: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep exotic animals.
Proposed: Everyone may keep exotic animals, the trade in exotic animals is unregulated.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards the funding of libraries.
Old value:: The national government provides local governments with funding to operate libraries.
Current: Funding and operation of libraries is left entirely to local governments.
Proposed: Books may only be obtained through private dealers.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning museum funding.
Old value:: The government gives monetary grants to organizations which have established or are looking to establish museums.
Current: The national government provides local governments with the funding to operate museums.
Proposed: The government does not fund or manage museums. This is left to the private sector.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The funding of sports clubs.
Old value:: The government funds some sports clubs side-by-side with private ones.
Current: Local governments decide the funding policy of sports clubs.
Proposed: The government does not fund sports clubs; only private ones are allowed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 17:47:31, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | Did you already forget what we said about omnibus bills. :rolleyes: I'm not even going to respond to this bullshit at the moment, it's just too depressing to see any sane person defend this. Assuming there are sane persons in the LIP of course... |
Date | 17:59:33, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | On article 1: Children MUST have additional protection, we must not allow nine-year olds to be employed in factories and mines and such under the same conditions as adults! On article 2: against. On article 3: It is very important to protect our great nation's cultural and historical heritage for our posterity. On article 4: There are several very rare, but very serious diseases, so subsidisation for research is an absolute necessity. If there were no subsidisation, there would be no incentive to research into cures for these diseases as they would not make any profit by doing so, and if they did do research into it, the product would be so expensive hardly anyone would be able to afford it. For the Rutanians who are so unlucky to get such a disease, maintaining the subsidisation is necessary. On article 5: Regulation in this area is necessary. Surely you don't want exotic animals carrying rare diseases entering the country and destroying our fragile ecological system? On article 6: That would mean there would be no books in many rural areas in Rutania, those people have the right to read books as well. Books are a necessary means for education and social advancement. On article 7: I'm pleasantly surprised by this, but I have to vote against that as well. Medical research involving animals is just an unfortunate necessity sometimes. On article 8: Museums are not profitable without government support. Do you wish to annihilate Rutanian cultural life? On article 9: Government-funded sports clubs are sometimes necessary, especially in areas or in sports where the sports clubs would otherwise not be profitable. The public sector must intervene where the private sector fails. |
Date | 19:03:00, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | This is filthy billspamming, clear and simple. We might support a well-reasoned copyright proposal, but certainly not this. |
Date | 20:12:53, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | "On article 1: Children MUST have additional protection, we must not allow nine-year olds to be employed in factories and mines and such under the same conditions as adults!" Why? If they dont want to work in mines or factories, they dont have to. This just says they can. We would be willing to compromise by saying that there are special regulations, but only if it's the only way to get the votes. "On article 2: against." Why? "On article 3: It is very important to protect our great nation's cultural and historical heritage for our posterity." At the expense of the hard working taxpayer? The benefits arent worth it, in my mind, and Im sure there are plenty of private organisations that will want to buy them and run them as attractions which charge only people who actually visit them rather than the whole country. "On article 4: There are several very rare, but very serious diseases, so subsidisation for research is an absolute necessity. If there were no subsidisation, there would be no incentive to research into cures for these diseases as they would not make any profit by doing so, and if they did do research into it, the product would be so expensive hardly anyone would be able to afford it. For the Rutanians who are so unlucky to get such a disease, maintaining the subsidisation is necessary." Why is it good to devote research efforts to researching into extremely rare diseases? Doesnt it make sense to prioritise research that will save the most lives first, which the market does, rather than in rectifying the "bad luck" of people with rare diseases? "On article 5: Regulation in this area is necessary. Surely you don't want exotic animals carrying rare diseases entering the country and destroying our fragile ecological system?" If they have diseases they are covered by seperate quarantine laws. "On article 6: That would mean there would be no books in many rural areas in Rutania, those people have the right to read books as well. Books are a necessary means for education and social advancement." Then they can order them from the internet or catalogues, or people can set up mobile libraries. "On article 7: I'm pleasantly surprised by this, but I have to vote against that as well. Medical research involving animals is just an unfortunate necessity sometimes." This doesnt make sense. Are you in favour, or not? "On article 8: Museums are not profitable without government support. Do you wish to annihilate Rutanian cultural life?" Do you have any evidence that they arent profitable without government support? "On article 9: Government-funded sports clubs are sometimes necessary, especially in areas or in sports where the sports clubs would otherwise not be profitable. The public sector must intervene where the private sector fails." Sports clubs in general are never a necessity. You can exercise without going to a designated sports club. Sports clubs are luxuries, like cinemas, and shouldnt be funded on public money. "This is filthy billspamming, clear and simple. We might support a well-reasoned copyright proposal, but certainly not this." If I proposed them all as seperate articles the spam would be much worse and take up an entire page. It's easier to post them as one bill (they are all related, afterall) and split them off as people request. This maximises efficiency of space. It's only bill spamming if I put them all straight to vote. Do you want me to split off the copyright proposal? |
Date | 20:19:31, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | Wow RSDP contradict themselves without any prodding First, we wont respond to this then they do! Hilarious Remove article 1 and 7, then we will support this |
Date | 20:25:33, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | As RSDP also mentioned those two, I will splite them off. |
Date | 20:50:54, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | We support the copy protection and pretty much all of the privatisation. We are likely to support. |
Date | 21:12:43, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | "Why? If they dont want to work in mines or factories, they dont have to. This just says they can. We would be willing to compromise by saying that there are special regulations, but only if it's the only way to get the votes." Do you really believe that nine-year olds can make conscious decisions? They'll be pushed by their parents to take the job anyway, especially if their parents are extremely poor. The mere fact that someone (ab)using the term "liberal" to describe his party can support this is sickening. |
Date | 21:13:16, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | BTW, was it not the Freedom Party which wanted limited copy protection in the first place? |
Date | 21:20:38, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | We would support a well-reasoned copyright protection bill to be split off, but we really do call on the LIP to keep up a standard of debate and not retreat into billspamming. |
Date | 21:32:29, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | "Do you really believe that nine-year olds can make conscious decisions?" Yes. Children arent braindead. "They'll be pushed by their parents to take the job anyway, especially if their parents are extremely poor." Well by law they still have to attend school, and their parents cannot simply take their money. However, even if parents do send their children to work outside of school time, why is this such a bad thing? Presumably the children also share in the wealth of the household so they benefit too. I dont see where the problem would be. "The mere fact that someone (ab)using the term "liberal" to describe his party can support this is sickening." Clearly this IS a liberal policy - it is allowing people to do things. The debate is not whether or not it is "liberal" but whether or not it is "desirable". |
Date | 21:37:56, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | [OOC: Please move any future debate on that bill to the Childrens' Liberty Act.] "BTW, was it not the Freedom Party which wanted limited copy protection in the first place?" I dont know, was it? Even if it was, why does it matter? I am not the Freedom Party. "We would support a well-reasoned copyright protection bill to be split off," I will do so. "but we really do call on the LIP to keep up a standard of debate and not retreat into billspamming." I have made the joint highest number of posts out of anyone on this thread, and I have also made the largest post. I have answered every point made on this bill. YOUR posts on this thread consist of two lines of text, one of which does not address the bill at all but merely accuses me of bill spamming, and a second which has a 40/60 split in favour of the bill spamming accusations. I do not believe that you are in any position WHATSOEVER to accuse me of not engaging in proper debate. |
Date | 14:03:58, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | We will now fully support, articles 2, 5 and 6 are particularly important to us. We believe strongly in private sports clubs, in government staying out of museums and removing the subsidies for research. We hate subsidies to companies |
Date | 15:47:55, January 07, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Free Markets Act, 2166 |
Message | Can this be sent to vote? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||||
yes |
Total Seats: 124 | ||||||
no |
Total Seats: 393 | ||||||
abstain | Total Seats: 82 |
Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
Random quote: "It all came from there." - Lech Walesa (pointing to a TV when a reporter asked him why communism fell) |