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: Financial Responsability Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Forwardist 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: October 2056
Description[?]:
| It is up to the Individual to decide what to do with their money, not the government (Federal OR Communal) A nationwide legalization of gambling will not only save us money in terms of fighting it, but it will also create many more jobs, as all other parts of the entertainment industry do. Returning responsability to the individual by letting them decide what is right for them is always a better alternative than letting their neighbors determine what is right for them. As it is now, Communes have the right (and many have done so) to babysit the citizens. We intend to fix that. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to gamble.
Old value:: The legality of gambling is a matter of local governments.
Current: Gambling is legal, but only in private homes and casinos with special licences.
Proposed: Gambling is legal across the nation, no regulation whatsoever.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:10:30, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Financial Responsability Bill |
| Message | Prove that they have chosen to "babysit the citizens". Prove it. Furthermore, gambling destroys an economy. It absorbs the income of the lowest classes and encourages downtrodden communities. Casino's are dens of sin and disgust. |
| Date | 04:28:51, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Financial Responsability Bill |
| Message | We agree witht he APL. Here's a scenario we have for keeping the current situation. Lets say in Commune A 90% of the people are against gambling, but 10% are for it. If we force the people of Commune A to have gambling, then the people of Commune A are being forced to do something against their will. If the people of commune A got to choose, then they would get what the majority wanted. However, under this system, we might as well take away the democratic process altogether, seeing how the people aren't fairly represented. |
| Date | 04:33:22, May 22, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Financial Responsability Bill |
| Message | Letting the communes decide what is best for the individual is tyrannical. let the individual make up their own mind of what they do with their money. and as i have said before, gambling does not 'destroy' an economy any more than any other part of the entertainment industry. letting the communes tell the individual what they should do with their own lives and their own money because the majority population thinks it's "better for them" is babysitting 1) we don't have to hire more police to fight gambling, saving all parts of government lots of money 2) casinos provide jobs. more jobs are always better for the economy 3) people should decide what to do with their own money. if they want to spend it in the slot machines, that's entirely up to them. |
| Date | 04:35:07, May 22, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Financial Responsability Bill |
| Message | nobody is 'forcing' people to stick their money in a slot machine. don't like gambling? don't gamble. but you can't force your neighbor to stop doing what they want with their own lives just because you don't like it. i don't see where you get this "people are being forced to gamble" crap |
| Date | 11:54:24, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Financial Responsability Bill |
| Message | " then they would get what the majority wanted. " Well woohoo, ever hear of tyranny by majority? |
| Date | 16:46:43, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Financial Responsability Bill |
| Message | They aren't getting "forced" to gamble, but seriously, here's an example where the "communes"(in this case, states) decide their gambling laws. In the U.S., the states choose. It's been that way for nearly forever, and it's worked out fine. People realize that if they wanna gamble, they should either go to Indian Land(because the Native Americans own ALOT of good Casinos, and the Natives govern Indian Land), go to Atlantic City, or go to Las Vegas. Have angry citizens thrown giant riots because they can't afford to fly to vegas to waste their money? No. Thus, this proves that letting the communes decide works. |
| Date | 17:20:08, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Financial Responsability Bill |
| Message | Poor people gamble because they think it will help them, and it NEVER does. The only way to win at gambling is to have enough money that you can afford to lower the odds, instead it sucks away the income of poor people. Going to a movie does not offer the chance that you can get ahead in life, nor does any other part of the entertainment industry. Gambling destroys whole families, and anyone who votes for this is a damned fool. |
| Date | 18:13:35, May 22, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Financial Responsability Bill |
| Message | The NDP supports this change. We expect greater gambling freedom will increase tourism to our great nation thus improving the economy. |
| Date | 20:43:50, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Financial Responsability Bill |
| Message | It is much more likely that someone living near a casino will visit it then it is likely that someone from an entirely different country will come just for the casinos. Furthermore, gambling is not illegal, it is being managed by the communal governments. Which is how it should remain. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 311 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 259 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
| Random quote: "The right to suffer is one of the joys of a free economy." - Howard Pyle (commenting on unemployment in Detroit) |