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: Clear Skies
Details
Submitted by[?]: Leviathan 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: December 2066
Description[?]:
| Clear of profiteering corporations, that is. This bill would eliminate permits granted to private corporations for high orbit and space travel. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards space exploration.
Old value:: The government shall issue permits to private space-exploration companies.
Current: The government shall operate a space agency that contracts with and oversees private space-exploration companies.
Proposed: Space exploration and use is totally prohibited.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:01:23, June 14, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Clear Skies |
| Message | There are too many dangers involved with high orbit and space travel to simply hand out permits; the kind of control needed to ensure the safe and legal execution of a space program can only be achieved under strict government supervision, and Malivia is not yet ready to undertake such a project. |
| Date | 00:14:48, June 15, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Clear Skies |
| Message | If we're going to revoke the permits, why don't we also nationalise any infrastructure the corporations have developed? It could kick-start a national space agency quite nicely. |
| Date | 06:10:00, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Clear Skies |
| Message | I honestly doubt much infrastructure exists yet, since the law legalizing space travel is so new. We would love to hear the SRP's explanation for why they're for allowing de facto unregulated space travel by private corporations. |
| Date | 06:24:29, June 15, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Clear Skies |
| Message | Why doesn't the LibCom propose their bill instead of just removing the current system if that is what they want. If we remove their industry first the infrastructure will be gone before it has a chance of being nationalized. We feel that the benefits of space travel are far reaching and numerous, but we can see how some feel that they do not justify the cost of such a program. Thus we support the work being done with private money which is spent in Malivia on jobs which require high levels of education and/or skills. We should support such industries not squash them. What do we lose, yes it is dangerous yet the danger is primarily on those participating in it, not on the average citizen. Our geography is well suited for launches over the eastern ocean where any mishap will be isolated from the average citizen. |
| Date | 06:25:50, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Clear Skies |
| Message | In addition, If we require permits we require oversight, thus the industry is not unregulated. |
| Date | 13:18:24, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Clear Skies |
| Message | De facto, as in how exactly would one prevent corporation from all manner of abuses or unethical behavior? It's space, are we going to send our own investigators? It matters not, the PP supports private space exploration as a matter of ideology, not a true interest in the Malivian people. If that interest were sincere they'd have backed the Access to Higher Education bill being debated, as well as any number of prior proposals they have opposed. The PP is intentionally downplaying the risks involved in a space program in the interests of securing permission for corporations to foist these costs onto the Malivian people. Does the PP, for instance, know the environmental impact of launch sites? That they deafen animals for miles around? Or the amount of pollution released by a rocket launch, never mind the legal issues around what we're putting into space. If the PP wants to bring in high tech industry, the best way to do that is ensure our workers have access to the highest forms of education, regardless of economic status. We don't need to give businesses permission to ride shod over common sense in order to build a value added economy, so what's the point? To serve the interests of the ownership class, clearly. |
| Date | 17:52:12, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Clear Skies |
| Message | what form of abuses are we speaking of? With on ground inspections, we can cover most problems since anything the do will have to go up with them. actions can be monitored many different ways from the ground. We do not believe that we have spoken out against the access to higher ed bill at all, if we felt it needed us to chime in we would have spoken up. We have supported both private funding and public funding options, so perhaps the LevP should recheck their facts as to who we are working for. We have spoken out against rocket launches and prefer to research another way. Our environmental record clearly demonstrates our position on this and the LevP should recheck their record before trying to throw stones on this issue.. If the LevP would like to continue to hold back the nation that is their right, every action they have has been to stagnate our nation and move it backwards. Other parties have looked toward the future and continue to lead the nation rather then anchor it in the past. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 53 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 36 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 11 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Josef Stalin |