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: Car Bill of -2198-
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: September 2199
Description[?]:
Allows the freedom of the citizens to choose their own automobile. Government should not determine what is best for the people when the people can decide for themselves. |
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: There are no regulations on the ownership of private cars.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 11:29:11, March 12, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Car Bill of -2198- |
Message | Proposal? |
Date | 15:34:16, March 12, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Car Bill of -2198- |
Message | The people already have a massive choice in vehicles, the only differences are that the choices that the people have currently will not severly harm our environment. "Government should not determine what is best for the people when the people can decide for themselves." - The people will choose whatever is cheapest, not necessarily what is best. Moreover, the people choose on a purely self centered idea not what is best for others or the Country and as such the Government becomes involved to guarantee that the people cannot adversely effect others |
Date | 05:45:19, March 13, 2006 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Car Bill of -2198- |
Message | "The people will choose whatever is cheapest, not necessarily what is best." The people can choose whatever they want to choose. I think it is more self centered on governments part to invoke or rather force people to accept the choices of government. Also I would assume environmentally cleaner fuels are more expensive to produce for the energy industry (which at the 28% tax rate leaves little room for companies to expand economically) and more expensive to the consumer who may not be capable of affording the high cost of this fuel. Attempting to protect society from these "adverse" effects is not realistic, and instead only creates a monolith of laws, restrictions, and regulations that help no one. |
Date | 14:33:11, March 13, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Car Bill of -2198- |
Message | "Also I would assume environmentally cleaner fuels are more expensive to produce for the energy industry " - With the research and develpment in these fuels already completed the cost of these fuels would be no more expensive, and could be cheaper, than producing standard fossil fuels. As the L-PU continually argues, the market adapts and as such would already be producing cheap, clean fuels for purchase, or does the L-PU believe that the market would artificially keep these prices high, in which case there would be a strong argument for Government regulation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes |
Total Seats: 198 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 202 | ||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: "Nation raiding" or a malevolent coordinated effort by a single user or group of users to interrupt the gameplay, significantly alter the culture or direction of a nation is strictly prohibited. Players interacting in nation raiding will be sanctioned. |
Random quote: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible." - Donald Trump |