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: Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive 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: March 2188
Description[?]:
| While we very much are for the concept of DWC's, we believe that the government has no business subsidizing and giving tax breaks to companies run by DWC's over other companies. This type of favoritism is despicable and should not be in place for Likatonia to have a truly strong economy. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on Democratic Workers' Councils.
Old value:: The government encourages the formation of Democratic Workers' Councils through subsidies and tax exemptions.
Current: The government does not intervene in the marketplace with regards to Democratic Workers' Councils.
Proposed: The government does not intervene in the marketplace with regards to Democratic Workers' Councils.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:00:43, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism |
| Message | We will support this, pending debate. |
| Date | 14:25:21, February 16, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism |
| Message | We will support the removal of government intervention in the free flow of capital. |
| Date | 17:34:24, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism |
| Message | AM AAP opposes. The current law does not 'force' anything, but it offers incentives to industries that make use of their workers for more than just labour. It is the right of government to incentivise (positively OR negatively) those areas that it sees as needing such attentions. Thus - cigarettes have long been negatively incentivised, as is appropriate for such a nationally destructive product. In this case, the government incentivises something that is a boon to society. AM AAP fails to see 'the bad'. |
| Date | 20:11:03, February 16, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism |
| Message | Two points on which we must disagree with our collegues in the AM AAP. First, the unproven assumption that DWC's are a boon to society. Is there any evidence to support the theory that the workers can operate an industry more effeciently than any other group of owners? Second, as to "the bad" - If two groups of investors are attempting to acquire control of a business and the government favors one over the other, that is an inappropiate use of the force of the government, no matter if the favored group is a DWC or a group of campaign contributers. In either case, it is a corruption of the marketplace. We feel that the government should be neutral as to the ownership of business. |
| Date | 05:05:39, February 17, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism |
| Message | Response to AM RLP: First: We assume that the AM RLP does not think that 'workers' SHOULD be nothing more than wrench-carriers and grease-monkeys? We further assume that the AM RLP can perceive that MUCH of the positive thinking in an industry OFTEN comes from below conventional 'management' levels? It is a boon to society, to make use of THOSE talents of your workers. It is a boon to the workers (who are a large part of our society, no?) to be recognised for those talents, and be allowed to use them. It is a boon to the industry (again, part of our society) to REWARD those groups which value their workers in this way. Second: Simply not true. Our government regulates who can acquire control of businesses on a day to day basis. Last week, our Trade department was examining the problems that might be caused by a Deltarian concern taking over our largest Steel producer. The week before that, we were dealing with a potential buyout of one of our larger Oil companies by Lodamun. The week before that, we were debating the aggressive takeover tactics of Meriasoft, versus the small software company, Likatech. If it is a corruption of the marketplace, then it is a POSITIVE corruption of the marketplace. One of the jobs of government is to protect the rights of the individual IN the marketplace... whether it be from aggression, 'unethical treatment'.. or simple artificial ceilings. |
| Date | 16:48:10, February 17, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism |
| Message | Response to AM AAP: We do, of course, recognize the positive contributions that can be made by the workers in an industry; and support those who wish to become owners of their industry. If the workers have a viable business plan, they will be able to raise funds to purchase their company and run it like any other. They should not be given advantages not given to other forms of ownership, as that is unfair to those not given favors. As to the other issue, there is a difference between deciding if a foreign concern should be allowed to purchase a domestic plant and determining which one of multiple domestic buyers is more deserving. The market forces, working thru the existing owners, can most fairly determine that question. For the government to favor one over another, leaves open the strong possibility of corruption of and in the marketplace and government. We do not view this possibility as a positive. "One of the jobs of government is to protect the rights of the individual IN the marketplace... " We agree, and the rights of the non DWC purchasers need to be protected as well. |
| Date | 18:23:47, February 17, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism |
| Message | We do not understand where the RLP sees a dichotomy. If a company that is NOT owned by a DWC wishes to gain advantage of the incentives for a DWC, all they have to do, is open up their 'ownership' to their workers... making the employees part of the process at 'hands-on', rather than at one remove. |
| Date | 20:43:04, February 17, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism |
| Message | So in order to compete on a level playing field, all the current owners need to do is to sell out? Is this in keeping with our values of fairness and equal protection to all? |
| Date | 19:35:03, February 18, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Eliminating Corporate Favoritism |
| Message | How can the AM RLP argue 'level playing field', when the ownership of industry is centred in the hands of a few? How is that 'level'? Surely, equalising the split WITHIN the industry, is the strongest manifestation of fairness and equal protection? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 238 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 184 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 78 |
| Random fact: Periodically, it is a good idea to go through your nation's Treaties and arrange to withdraw from any that are unwanted. |
| Random quote: "I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it." - Niccolo Machiavelli |