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: Deterrent Provision Act 2070
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith 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: March 2071
Description[?]:
| With the people of Lodamun having shown their support to those that supported the re-institution of a nuclear deterrent. We put this straight to vote. The debate had just finished when we had an election that reflected the view of the majority of our people as being pro peace, not pro weakness. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Current: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:47:29, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | Still opposed. And again, anti-nuclear is not the same as pro-weakness. |
| Date | 01:24:29, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | There are other, more humane options than the production of nuclear arms. Remaining nuclear arms free is a large step forward for world peace. We'd be setting an excellent example. |
| Date | 01:34:00, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | You missed the debate. These points have already been thrashed out to general disagreement. |
| Date | 04:08:44, June 23, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | Excuse my language, but fuck, this is going to be a rough for years for the parties not in the pockets of the corporations. |
| Date | 05:28:29, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | A rough translation being, this is going to be the first period in a long time when freedom of choice will be available. |
| Date | 06:35:59, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | soryy, I'm new to this |
| Date | 06:57:14, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | soryy, I'm new to this |
| Date | 15:34:29, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | No criticism, just that as we had just debated this all out, and at the moment you have 0 votes (I was there very recently) it was not worth rehashing the arguments at this point. |
| Date | 16:30:13, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | ((Still, glad you're sticking around LSP. Keep voting, and you'll get a few seats next time.)) |
| Date | 17:00:34, June 23, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | Nuclear weapons are expensive to produce, expensive to maintain and expensive to decommission. It is disgraceful that these stalinist warmongers should deploy people's hard-earned cash in this way. Truly libertarian parties would set up a charity and if people wanted nuclear weapons they could donate money to it individually. And to be truly fair the government should provide vouchers for low-income families to donate if they wanted to. |
| Date | 17:25:15, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | Defence is one of the very few genuine government concerns. As such it behooves the government to do the best possible in terms of defence, which includes the possession of a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons are individually expensicve, yes, but you do not need to pay them every month, nor do you need thousands of them. As part of an overall defence strategy they actually save money for the tax payer. The stalinists would conscript millions into the armed forces, pay to equip them badly with poorly made overpriced equipment that they are not trained to use. We prefer not to follow that model. |
| Date | 18:40:08, June 23, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | Actually, we'd like to know what the taxpayers are being expected to fund the defence of. It's not to defend themselves because nukes are a supposed to be a strategic deterrent. It's not to defend the state because even if Lodamun was invaded one state would replace another. So is it the defence of the government? But governments are disposable, ours only lasts four years. It's a lot of money to protect something with such a short shelflife. You're using a lot of other people's money to protect yourselves. Who says defence is one of the very few genuine government concerns? If the people it controls are starving isn't that another? What about if they're dying of kidney failure? What about getting them to learn loads of interesting and useful stuff? If the market wants nukes they should buy them for themselves. The taxpayers want to know this: Who's threatening them? A foreign government or their own? Stalinism wears many different trousers. |
| Date | 20:44:35, June 23, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | " Truly libertarian parties would set up a charity and if people wanted nuclear weapons they could donate money to it individually. And to be truly fair the government should provide vouchers for low-income families to donate if they wanted to." That made me laugh. And LSP, vote on every bill there is, we could use parties like yours with some more seats. |
| Date | 07:36:55, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act 2070 |
| Message | If people are starving, that isnt the responsibility of anyone else, unless they choose to help them. If people are dying of kidney failure, again thats a personal problem. If you want to force people to learn stuff...good luck with that. If an individual wants to buy nukes, there is no justifiable non terrorist reason for an individual to do so. The state on the other hand must defend its citizens, that is its job. If a country gets invaded...yes the government is gone. But the people are rarely better off because of it. But if a country has no nukes, what will cause another nation to not nuke them? There is no incentive. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 255 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 195 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with. |
| Random quote: "To refuse political equality is to rob the ostracized of all self-respect." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton |