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: Car policy.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Hobrazian Peoples 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: February 2173
Description[?]:
| THere has for a long time been a very disturbing pollution by private cars. Therefore there is a need to lower the limit of cars owned by private persons. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning private cars.
Old value:: Private cars are allowed, but people are encouraged to travel collective and tax incentives are provided for cars using environmentally friendly fuels.
Current: Only cars using environmentally friendly fuels are allowed.
Proposed: Only one car allowed per household, people are encouraged to travel collective and tax incentives on cars using environmentally friendly fuels.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:10:42, January 16, 2006 CET | From |   Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Car policy. |
| Message | Ok let's look at this. 1) Limiting car ownership is not only a civil rights issue, but it doesn't make any sense. Car industry which is dependent on car sales obviously to keep thier buisness running, and if you allow 1 car per houshold..well car sales are not going to enough to keep them in buisness as producing 2 cars a week does hurt profit. 2) If the buisness fails or leaves for a less restrictve nation, then the people who work there will be out of work and wages lost. And this coming from a socialist. Workers must love you. 3)It's not realistic to believe that the environmentally friendly fuels, which cost more to produce than normal fuel will ever be uses in Hobrazia. Because guess who must change the fuel to make it "environmentally friendly? The same industry or industry's, but in most cases the car industry themselves are responsible for this expensive procedure. How in the hell can they produce this fuel while limiting their ability to make money then taxing their tiny profit at a 30% level without the entire automobile industry going bankrupt and thousands of jobs lost. Again doesn't make sense. 4) Pollution- So instead of driving cars, you prefer that busses which produce much more exhaust and fumes than car , be used because "cars give a disturbing amount of pollution". Hmm, so a unemployed former car industry worker is forced to hop on a pollution spewing bus because his one car is not running due to the expensive gas prices which he cannot afford.. Overall a well thougt out policy you have with this bill...workers will love you. |
| Date | 18:54:05, January 16, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Car policy. |
| Message | @L-PU - 3) Consider this way of thinking about environemntally friendly fuels. If companies market them specifically on their cleanliness then they are likely to attract customers who care about the environment. By having a larger than normal markup on such goods they can make a bigger profit than on normal fuels 4)Although buses may pollute more than cars more people can use a bus at the same time. This means that the pollution per capita is reduced. It is easier for the government to convert buses to environmentally friendly fuels that cars as the fuel only need be supplied to a limited number of depots. This also creates a supply of fuels for other uses making creation of cars running on them easier. @All - We oppose this motion. There is no need for such restrictive policies. |
| Date | 19:15:38, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Car policy. |
| Message | I agree that friendly fuel's can be a beneficial for companies to produce, but only if they were able to profit enough from their primary goal of producing car's. The proposal limit's this so the fuel issue is unrealistic at this point. As to buses, again I agree that the future potential exists for public transportation to be beneficial to buisness as well as cheaper for the public. But currenly buses will cause more harm than good and will benefit nobody. |
| Date | 19:21:49, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Hobrazian Peoples Party | To | Debating the Car policy. |
| Message | @1: We treasure our enviroment and therefore see no reason for polluting it more than your industrialisation is already contributing to. Furthermore, there will be a big need for exchanging of polluting cars to enviromentally friendly cars because of the tax incentives. So there should be plenty of work to do. Eventually the car industry will find its supply/demand level, that L-PU loves so much. @2: There is no saying that the car industry shall leave for another nation. This can be done anyway, if their profit isn't high enough. Furthermore they still can export cars overseas. This bill actually don't contain any restrictions for car producers, but only for private households. @3: But we can try to provide the opportunity. Since there is tax incentives imposed in this bill, the demand for enviromentally friendly cars will surely rise, and as such, provide encouragement to those seeking to earn money in the industry. All a very ideological liberal thinking :-) Well, you could propose a resolution saying that car companies intersted in developing new energysources will get tax incentives or get subsidised from our government. We would support such a resolution. @4: We encourage the use of public transport and other means of transportation, such as joint cars, bikes etc.. We also see the effectivenes in getting our roads free of the heavy traffic. About the pollution from public transportation means we think that the when lowering the amount of cars on the street, with this proposal, there is plenty of "removed pollution" to actually invest in expanding the public transport. These means will eventually also be enviromentally friendly. |
| Date | 19:37:20, January 16, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Car policy. |
| Message | "Furthermore, there will be a big need for exchanging of polluting cars to enviromentally friendly cars because of the tax incentives." AND "Since there is tax incentives imposed in this bill, the demand for enviromentally friendly cars will surely rise," - Already present. Limiting car numbers will reduce demand (Fact). |
| Date | 20:36:33, January 16, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Car policy. |
| Message | We would rather support the measure to allow only cars using environmentally friendly fuels. This would have the benefit of: 1. It doesn't limit the number of cars people own, nor does it reduce the number of cars being produced by the car industry, mainaining what we hope would be a large sector of Hobrazias manufacturing industry; 2. There would be no loss of business as they would be the only types of car available for purchase within this Country, maintaining a high volume of sales. These vehicles would also be in a perfect position to take over in the export market too as they would provide cleaner alternatives to other cars being produced in other Countries, a niche market if you will. 3. Environmentally friendly fuels would sell in large quantities if they were the only fuel legally allowed to be used offsetting any large one-off investments in the technology and so creating a flourishing new industry, which would allow for the maintenance of the employment numbers whilst also decreasing pollution. A win-win scenario. 4. Busses and other forms of public transport would also be encouraged to move over to these cleaner fuels, not only reducing pollution levels, but an individual bus is able to carry the equivalent of 10+ cars freeing up more space on the roads whilst also lowering pollution, again win-win! |
| Date | 15:38:46, January 17, 2006 CET | From | Capitalizt Party | To | Debating the Car policy. |
| Message | This--AGAIN!! What can I say? A lot has already been said here and also in many of my attempts to make this bill national law. And it finally became true. Now, this-won't-pass. I can just say... nay. Every other word would be a waste. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 166 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 234 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you want to leave Particracy, please inactivate yourself on your user page to save the moderation team some time. |
| Random quote: "Anarchy stands for the liberation of the human mind from the domination of religion, the liberation of the human body from the domination of property, liberation from the shackles and restraints of government." - Emma Goldman |