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: Personal Freedoms Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertarian 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: November 2168
Description[?]:
| An act to increase personal freedoms |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Current: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Proposed: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are only legal with grounded cause (such as adultery, or violence).
Current: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:27:31, January 07, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Personal Freedoms Act |
| Message | Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. Personal freedoms are absolutely central to a democratic state and if we allow them to be undermined then there is no democracy but we are becoming a system wherebye the government is only their for power and so how they maintain it will matter little. Freedom is everything, nothing comes second to that! |
| Date | 00:08:13, January 08, 2006 CET | From | Global Democracy Movement Party | To | Debating the Personal Freedoms Act |
| Message | Agree with article 2 but not with article 1... |
| Date | 01:22:17, January 08, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Anti-Fascist Communist Party | To | Debating the Personal Freedoms Act |
| Message | 2 maybe 1 no |
| Date | 12:37:04, January 08, 2006 CET | From |  First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Personal Freedoms Act |
| Message | 2 yes 1 no. |
| Date | 17:04:55, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Peoples Revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Personal Freedoms Act |
| Message | Im thinking only for peoples freedoms...its hard to imagine that the LP would actually propose this bill, but its not something that we will complain about. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 106 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 109 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 78 |
| Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "When we're unemployed, we're called lazy; when the whites are unemployed it's called a depression." - Jesse Jackson |