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: Incentives instead of Prohibitions
Details
Submitted by[?]: Freedom Socialist 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: April 4134
Description[?]:
| Fellow comrades of this honourable House! We are here today to present an reform that's mostly an political move in the form of an message than an act of society-changing effects, if we can be excused of our honesty. But that doesn't mean it's an small reform. On the contrary. Our currently set of law is based on an negative discourse. It's based on an prohibition. We could be getting the same effects this current law wants with an message more suggestive-tone based. The only negative side of the change, someone could say, is that, with the allowance of private cars, social differences could be back on full force. I would request our colleagues to read the current law again to reiterate that point: this is an prohibition of every car that is not "green". It has nothing to do with the fact that they're private. There are lots of environmentally friendly private cars as well. This law in effect doesn't touch the problem it thinks its solving. Why change it, after all? Well, because the current law is nothing but an authoritarian move for the sake of it. We need to be politically smart about this. And that's true to all parties involved. To our liberal friends, it's an obvious choice: the change will mean less government imposing and more individual freedom. To our socialist allies, we ask for political awareness: the reason we like big government presence (at least as a transition, to some ideologies) is to prevent inequality and guarantee, with an equality-driven public service, that all citizens, especially those that are always left out, can get recognition and respect, equal chances, equal rights. This change will keep our goals but we would be getting rid of this imposing tone that almost always has negative effects. If we decide to fight the wrong battles, we may lose the big "war" we have, against social injustice. After all, putting our fingers on the privates lives of our people when we absolutely don't have to (the suggestion will have the same effect with all the incentives) may cause those same people to turn their backs on us in the future, looking for more appropriate options when it comes to the elections... Dr. Douglas Coutinho PhD in History and Education President and Founder of the People's Coutinho Party |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning private cars.
Old value:: Only cars using environmentally friendly fuels are allowed.
Current: Only cars using environmentally friendly fuels are allowed.
Proposed: Private cars are allowed, but people are encouraged to travel collective and tax incentives are provided for cars using environmentally friendly fuels.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:50:25, December 11, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Incentives instead of Prohibitions |
| Message | OOC: We don't want to be like the US where Prohibition was implemented |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 490 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 110 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players have failed to clearly and accurately reference their nation's RP laws in the "Bills under debate" section, Moderation will rule them invalid if a challenge is made to their validity. |
| Random quote: "Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." - Franklin D. Roosevelt |