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: National Defence Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kundrati 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: May 2182
Description[?]:
| The industries responsible for the defence of the Kundrati people should be solely responsible to the democratic government, rather than private shareholders. The KSP believes that all defence industries should be under public ownership, to ensure their activities are in line with our national interest. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Current: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Proposed: The state owns all defence industries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:45:30, February 05, 2006 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | That’s a very weak argument indeed. If the companies are not “in line with our national interest” then the government won’t purchase their products and they will go out of business! Would the Socialist Party not agree that this constant threat is pretty big incentive to stay “in line”? It would be foolish for us not to utilise the innovations and techniques developed by the private sector. Ideologies (especially failed ones), should never be promoted at the expense of national security. |
| Date | 20:23:11, February 05, 2006 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | No we wouldn't agree. It's complete pish. The unpredictability of the market has no place here. If state-owned industries are not self-sufficient - which they will not be, as the profit-chasing and wasteful competition of the private sector will obviously draw resources away - then the government will be unable to coordinate our efforts efficiently. An industry as vital as defence should not be left in unaccountable private hands. |
| Date | 13:54:58, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | The truth is that it’s the private companies that operate under much more stringent regulations. It’s the private companies that must compete in the market place. It’s because of this very competition that they strive to improve themselves and in turn offer a better service to Kundrati. After all, what better incentive is there than simply staying in business? None of these factors apply to the state run operation and that’s what makes your party’s argument not only misguided but also factually inaccurate. |
| Date | 14:23:27, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | Rubbish. The supposed discipline of the market place is geared towards one thing - maximising profits. It completely disregards the conditions of the defence workforce, the political and social consequences of defence policy, the potential danger of their research and production etc. Only a few will benefit from an open market in defence - shareholders. Guess what? It isn't the shareholders who do the work, or who depend on that work. That is absolutely no guarantee that allowing a privileged group influence in and control over defence industries will change the performance of the general workforce - any more than could be replicated within the public sector through the same pay and performence related incentives. Also, I would say that "national security" is somewhat of an incentive for the state-run industries to perform well! |
| Date | 14:23:43, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | Moving to a vote. |
| Date | 18:07:18, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | To quote your party: “Complete pish!” |
| Date | 21:42:09, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | "Also, I would say that "national security" is somewhat of an incentive for the state-run industries to perform well!" Exactly. Nation-to-Nation competition is just as, if not more, effective than Business-to-Business competition. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 147 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 139 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 19 |
| Random fact: Your user name is not your party name. Choose a concise and easy to remember user name. You can change your party name at any point in time later in the game. |
| Random quote: "Political institutions are a superstructure resting on an economic foundation." - Vladimir Lenin |