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: The First Step
Details
Submitted by[?]: Party for the Promotion of Pandas
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 2211
Description[?]:
| Lets start with Health shall we? |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Food and beverage labeling regulations.
Old value:: There are no laws concerning food and beverage labeling.
Current: Companies must clearly label food and beverage products, in a manner that can be easily understood.
Proposed: Companies must clearly label food and beverage products, in a manner that can be easily understood.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Food safety policy.
Old value:: Local governments determine food safety standards.
Current: The government introduces, and actively enforces, food standards provisions.
Proposed: The government introduces, and actively enforces, food standards provisions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:13:46, April 05, 2006 CET | From | Party for the Promotion of Pandas | To | Debating the The First Step |
| Message | Tell me what you like and dislike and I'll see if we cant strike some sort of bargain... or if theres anything missing... |
| Date | 09:34:56, April 05, 2006 CET | From | Bachelor Party | To | Debating the The First Step |
| Message | While these four articles are tied together by the common thread of health, they are divided by a far wider chasm. On the one hand, the theme seems to be one of placing vice-like controls on the activities of businesses, in the interest of protecting the health of individuals. But on the other hand, it encourages those same individuals to throw their health away with their own decisions. I could better understand, and perhaps even support, a bill that enforcing responsibility upon individuals to act in the interest of their own health, while at the same time protecting them from the actions of companies. But to saddle those companies with regulations to protect the health of individuals, then showing a complete lack of actual compassion for their health by encouraging them to drink and smoke of their own volition - well, frankly, that just comes across as exercising a desire to persecute businesses on the one hand, while encouraging lack of discipline and personal responsibility on the other hand. Frankly, I would like this bill if it were altered in either direction. Either impose the same restrictions upon individuals for their own activities that you impose upon the businesses, or relax regulations on the businesses to match the lax attitude revealed in your failure to actually care about people's health. Either way, as long as the bill is consistent, I would be happy with it. |
| Date | 14:29:57, April 05, 2006 CET | From | H.C.P.Z | To | Debating the The First Step |
| Message | Dont like 1 the rest are ok |
| Date | 07:26:42, April 06, 2006 CET | From | Party for the Promotion of Pandas | To | Debating the The First Step |
| Message | You have a very good point Bachelor, and for the time being at least I shall remove them. One of the reasons I tend to think restrictions on drug laws and such are silly are because they do not actually solve the problem, in that the people who want to use them use them still, whether or not there is a law. And vice versa. However, yu do have a point, and I shall change it accordingly. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 37 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 220 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 76 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: “Human rights means doing whatever the fuck you want” - Benji Benandez, former Dranian politician |