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 Park Network
Details
Submitted by[?]: Restoration 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 2064
Description[?]:
| For our first suggestion as Minister of the Interior Current Policy: Government does not have a national park system policy. Suggested Policy The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government does not have a national park system policy.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:54:42, June 06, 2005 CET | From |  Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | We support private conservation in this case, not federal interference in the environment. |
| Date | 08:42:06, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Restoration Party | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | It is our view that by establishing visible protected areas commercial and conservation activities can co-exist without politicising each building permit |
| Date | 18:44:28, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Red Arglon-Hulbark Liberation Front | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | We support this |
| Date | 20:23:29, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | Why do we need to protect areas, anyway? |
| Date | 21:14:31, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Restoration Party | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | In order to facilitate development in non-protected areas, and to ensure that our wildlife doesn't die off (bad press, really) |
| Date | 20:52:49, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | What purpose in society does this wildlife serve? |
| Date | 22:43:09, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Deadly Buzz Party | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | It looks nice, its not dirty factories. People dont want to live in an urban jungle. How are you supposed to get away from "the rat race" when there is buildings all around. |
| Date | 23:28:32, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | You know, not every non-urban area is a national park, right? I mean, really, I think people would rather visit a country meadow than a crowded, dark, huge national park... |
| Date | 01:06:19, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Deadly Buzz Party | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | Bit of a strange statement there. How can a huge open park be any darker than a meadow. If its such a huge park then there is plenty of room for everyone. I just dont see the problem of spending a little money to make our cities/countries look half decent. |
| Date | 03:54:10, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | There are forests, how can that be open? And besides, it's easier to let private individuals own these places. They'd do a better job at preserving them than a bureuacracy of incompetent government officials. |
| Date | 04:04:05, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | One more thing: you want to make our cities "half-decent." Another example of the flaws of environmentalism: when you must spend, spend on saving the trees, not the humans. Crime, education, military, etc get funds diverted to uphold parks that could EASILY be upheld by local governments or private individuals! |
| Date | 18:13:24, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Deadly Buzz Party | To | Debating the National Park Network |
| Message | Private individuals may do a better job, but there is no incentive for them to set up a park. IF they do invest money they will want a return on it and we believe that it is wrong to charge for enterance into a park etc. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 108 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 67 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Jezvraljogadsrlji" means "Social" in the Jelbic languages. |
| Random quote: "An extremely credible source has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud." - Donald Trump |