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: Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Commonwealth Workers Army
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: June 2175
Description[?]:
| Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda: Somethings, are better handled by those who know how. Destroy the evil of 'patronising' the inferior, in the name of 'fair'. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Television stations.
Old value:: All television media are private.
Current: The government subsidises a national TV station for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised TV stations are allowed.
Proposed: The government subsidises independent non-profit-making cooperatives for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised TV stations are allowed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:35:09, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | is their an option for a Government owned Station or Stations? |
| Date | 00:51:30, January 22, 2006 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | I think it means just that. So it would be like the CBC or BBC. |
| Date | 19:53:13, January 22, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | This seems to be the fairest option. It does not entirely place ALL television in the hands of the government. Instead, it allows not-for-profit groups to secure a tenure as a subsidised 'information' network - alongside private enterprise channels. The not-for-profit option places a degree of autonomy on the networks, whilst, ensuring they 'stay honest', by combining not-for-profit status, with a subsidy income scheme. |
| Date | 14:53:28, January 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | If these non-profit groups want to run a broadcast system, they can raise money and do so under the current system. THere is no need or justification for taking money from everyone to give an elite few the power to broadcast what they think we need to hear and see. |
| Date | 17:14:06, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | It is hardly an immediate and logical conclusion to leap to, that 'not for profit' automatically equates to 'an elite few'. There are many things that just do not make money. Indeed, they make a loss... fiscally. And yet, they are important, for OTHER reasons. Public Service television (does the RLP object to PSA's?) is never going to be lucrative. It is never going to break-even. But, it is important. That is what this legislation is for. To protect that which is NOT financially valuable - but DOES have other 'value'. This may be especially true of cultural programming. A totally free market does not necessarily equate to one that PRESERVES the native culture of the people. Indeed, quite the opposite tends to happen, as the lowest common denominator replaces other forms of culture on EVERY medium that has a bottom-line to meet. Government sponsored 'not for profit' television and radio, may be the ONLY ways to preserve Likatonian opera or ballet, for example. |
| Date | 17:22:33, January 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | Many 'not for profit' organizations survive without sucking from the public teat. If enough people feel that is is important, they will VOLUNTARILY support it with donations. If a minority feel that they have the right to FORCIBLY take money from all to support an operation, then they are acting as an elite and we will name them as such. |
| Date | 17:27:44, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | That doesn't address the points of 'culture', or Public Service. If 'opera' does not make money, should all Likatonian opera be discarded, so that 24 hour porn marathons can get uninterrupted coverage on ALL networks? |
| Date | 18:06:06, January 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | No, if opera does not make money; those who care about it should raise the funds necessary to make up the shortfal by soliciting voluntary contributions. Out citizens have a fine record of support for cultural causes, and will continue to support those they deem worthwhile. |
| Date | 18:31:17, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | Again - the RLP ignores the importance of Public Service. But - to discuss opera... if there are not sufficient 'voluntary' contributors for opera (or some other historical or cultural endeavour), then such aspects of our culture languish and decay. The RLP knows that sex sells... that porn will never be a dead market. The RLP also knows that the average punter will choose to spend his hard earned LIKs on sex and drugs, long before he will invest that currency in 'culture'. Axis Mundi Anakrousite does not believe that a citizen should be ALLOWED to cause the death of a cultural establishment, JUST because he is too selfish or hedonistic to support it. It is not fair to those that appreciate culture, but cannot afford it. It is doubly unfair to our children, who will be robbed of the virtues of former generations, by the vices of this one. |
| Date | 18:41:36, January 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | Public Service seems to be being handled quite well in the current system of requiring stations to carry these announcements as part of the requirements for a license to broadcast. As to the cultural arguement, who determines what is cultural and what is not? Can we not legitmately claim the that which survives the ages has demonstrated its value and that which fades has not? A form of Cultural Darwinism? |
| Date | 19:09:42, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | ANd - is not the current system, not a form of 'not for profit' subsidised programming? However, the current format is SO restrictive... since the networks show so little material that is Public Service, and have such a tendency to bury it in the ass-end of programming schedules. As to culture... is 'Cultural Darwinism' something we should desire? Surely - all it propogates is that which is most easily propogated (in the case of culture, that is the lowest common denominator material, and, especially, that material which is least expensive to make) Thus, Cultural Darwinism leads to the ascendency of "Late Night, Barely Legal, Excerpts from Big Brother", at the expense of "Macbeth". After all - we are not really talking about 'surviving the ages'... we are talking about reclaiming or losing our heritage, during THIS age. |
| Date | 19:17:16, January 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | Yes, it is but a much more acceptable one to us. And as to Cultural Darwinism, Macbeth has survived while such classics of Victorian porn as DIary of a Young Maid have not. This says much to the relative merits of popular porn vs the classics of drama. While the popular may have more visiblity now, it will not survive the test of time. |
| Date | 19:24:10, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | One wonders why the RLP would prefer the restriction of interrupting EVERY networks service for Public Service, rather than allowing the freedom of one or two 'not for profits' tcarrying the Public Service burden for all. And - when was the last time a member of the RLP actually saw "A Doll's House", performed? Much classic material is 'dead' on shelves. Not because it was unimportant. Not because it is unworthy. Purely because it doesn't catch enough public attention (and, thus, financial incentive) to make it 'worth' presenting. |
| Date | 19:30:41, January 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | As far as Ibsen is concerned, it has been a long while since I attended a performance; but that is due to personal preferences for Wagner. If you are asking about the availability of it, however, there was a performance last year. (OCC, I realize, but so is are all the references to existing literature) As long as the material is on the shelves, there will be those who will perform it and those who will attend. They have lasted this long without the government being involved, we find it doubtful that that will not continue to be the case. |
| Date | 19:42:18, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | (OOC: Almost tempted to relinquish the debate, JUST because there is another person familiar with Ibsen...) What we are being left with, is a poor man's theatre. A play hosted by a group of amateurs, in improvised surroundings may be quaint, and may be excellent... but it can not rival the majesty of that same play, performed (quaintly and excellently, perhaps) as a full-scale production, by professionals. And - so much 'nuance' is lost when a play is allowed to 'die'... even just to languish for a few years. "Art" should not be held to the same 'free market' policy as other 'services'. |
| Date | 20:27:26, January 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | More of the nuance is lost due to changing times rather than languishing on the shelves for a few years, IMHO. However, the question of who decides what is worthy of preservation on a public broadcasting system has yet to be resolved. If you believe the public is too ignorant to make that choice for themselves, then who selects the elite who are smart enough to give the people what they should like? |
| Date | 23:55:19, January 24, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Axis Mundi Anakrousite Agenda (v) |
| Message | It is truly a matter of ignorance... and that is not an insulting term. It is a pure matter of many people just having 'other stuff' they want to do, most of the time. So - why not let the 'elite', as you chose to term them, be elected from within the 'Art' communities? Allow the 'artistic' cultures to 'elect' representatives that lobby for (or even against) works. Then, preserve and showcase those selected works. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 224 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 276 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer". |
| Random quote: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we." - George W. Bush |