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: Limiting Government Tyranny Act
Details
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: March 4713
Description[?]:
| The State has far too much control over vital technology - easily leading to abuse of powers. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on internet service providers (ISPs).
Old value:: The state owns and operates a national internet service provider, alongside private ISPs.
Current: There is a national state-owned internet service provider, but small private ISPs are allowed, which are heavily restricted to ensure that they stay small.
Proposed: Private companies provide internet service throughout the nation, without government interference.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:32:02, February 17, 2020 CET | From | Libertarian Socialist Party (LSP/PSL) | To | Debating the Limiting Government Tyranny Act |
| Message | http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=616480 This only applies for applying to jobs.It doesn't count for entertainment. |
| Date | 23:59:51, February 17, 2020 CET | From | NLP | To | Debating the Limiting Government Tyranny Act |
| Message | The NLP is wary of any government control over access to the Internet - the primary problem isn't the cost, or whether the government is fueling social media addiction, but rather, when you have a government connection (such as when you are using a nationalized service provider), the government now has the capability to glean a lot of information over you. Using applying to jobs as an example. There's the obvious privacy breach of the government reading your employment files and what jobs you are looking for - but that is not the really severe data breach. The serious breach is in the metadata - from there, the government could potentially see where you've made, used, and transferred the file, the device, etc. Now, there could be the argument that the government wouldn't bother looking at that - but you cannot be sure - corrupt or otherwise malicious individuals could data-mine with ease. And yes, private ISPs can also do this. But, unlike a state-owned ISP, they have a reputation to maintain, and thus, would treat such actions far more severely than the government likely would - after all, who wants to use an ISP that is known to steal your data? Then, the market simply eliminates them in favor of another ISP that is more consumer-friendly. State-controlled ISPs cannot be eliminated - they can be rendered obsolete (in the case that no one wants to use it), in which case, this is a waste of taxpayer dollars. And this is also why we call for no government interference - so that there always is the freedom of choice - no enforced private monopolies (OOC: So not Comcast), nor enforced public ones. Should the Gaduri government be taken over by an authoritarian force, we wouldn't want them to have access to this metadata. While that doesn't seem to be a threat to the Federal Union at this moment, the NLP wouldn't want to help build the tools for a future government's surveillance program. The NLP has some red lines, and this is one of them. The Internet is simply too potent of a weapon to risk government control, no matter how benign it may seem. If the issue is lack of ability for some in society to reach a computer and apply for a job, there are likely other much better solutions. The NLP is dedicated to connecting talent with opportunity. If given a reasonable proposal, we would be all for it. But state-owned ISPs is not that solution. Cedric Tam, NLP Chairman. |
| Date | 01:48:31, February 18, 2020 CET | From | Libertarian Socialist Party (LSP/PSL) | To | Debating the Limiting Government Tyranny Act |
| Message | Would you like it if we made it unconstitutional for the government to data mine or sell data?Also, most, if not all, employers mandates that new applicants apply online, but not everyone can afford internet.Judging by your politics, you’d be against mandating employers to accept applications in person, so a limited state ISP is the other solution. Adolfo Gonzalez PM of Gaduridos |
| Date | 02:48:35, February 18, 2020 CET | From | NLP | To | Debating the Limiting Government Tyranny Act |
| Message | To answer your first question - to an extent - it should be illegal for the government to data-mine without a warrant. I would also push for legislation that would call for more in-person applications - I am a massive proponent of job fairs in that sense. Regarding mandating employers to see applicants in person, I will just say that in the private sector, employers go to where the talent is. Regarding Internet cost - deregulation of private ISPs and opening the market up to avoid oligopolies or monopolies will do more to lower prices than a state-owned entity would. Just because it is state-owned doesn't mean that it's free. Cedric Tam, NLP Chairman. |
| Date | 03:25:01, February 18, 2020 CET | From | Libertarian Socialist Party (LSP/PSL) | To | Debating the Limiting Government Tyranny Act |
| Message | To address your last point, a private ISP generally neglects rural areas for urban areas and many private ISPs hold local monopolies in less populated areas, so they’re able to charge high prices and rural people can’t boycott.Most of the competition happens in urban areas. Adolfo Gonzalez PM of Gaduridos |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 0 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 250 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com and http://www.behindthename.com/random are great resources for coming up with character names from unfamiliar cultures. |
| Random quote: "If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates." - Jay Leno |