Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5461
Next month in: 02:04:56
Server time: 05:55:03, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): Ahmad | Aur3ale | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date17:47:31, January 05, 2006 CET
From RSDP - Democratic Front
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageDid 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...

Date17:59:33, January 05, 2006 CET
From RSDP - Democratic Front
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageOn 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.

Date19:03:00, January 05, 2006 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageThis is filthy billspamming, clear and simple. We might support a well-reasoned copyright proposal, but certainly not this.

Date20:12:53, January 05, 2006 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating 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?

Date20:19:31, January 05, 2006 CET
From Freedom Party
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageWow 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

Date20:25:33, January 05, 2006 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageAs RSDP also mentioned those two, I will splite them off.

Date20:50:54, January 05, 2006 CET
From Libertarian Alcoholic Party II
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageWe support the copy protection and pretty much all of the privatisation. We are likely to support.

Date21:12:43, January 05, 2006 CET
From RSDP - Democratic Front
ToDebating 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.

Date21:13:16, January 05, 2006 CET
From RSDP - Democratic Front
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageBTW, was it not the Freedom Party which wanted limited copy protection in the first place?

Date21:20:38, January 05, 2006 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageWe 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.

Date21:32:29, January 05, 2006 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating 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".

Date21:37:56, January 05, 2006 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating 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.

Date14:03:58, January 06, 2006 CET
From Freedom Party
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageWe 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

Date15:47:55, January 07, 2006 CET
From Freedom Party
ToDebating the Free Markets Act, 2166
MessageCan 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)

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 100