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: Freedom of Space Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith Party
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 2075
Description[?]:
| Based on the obvious and immediate principle that our government does not have jurisdiction in space, we propose that we the attempts by the government to control this area by licensing companies in this field be removed. Companies based in other nations, which do not require such licensing will be able to use space as they see fit. All we achieve by requiring licensing is to give advantages to other regions in space exploration. The normal health and safety at work regulations would still apply so there is no risk to our citizens in removing this administrative and bureaucratic requirement. Space is to be defined as any region outside of this planet's (as yet unnamed) atmosphere. Atmosphere is to be defined as the presence of gas up to and including 0.1 Atmospheres. All citizens of Lodamun are to be provided with the same level of diplomatic protection when travelling in space as they would be if travelling in any other region outside of the national limits of Lodamun. |
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 shall be totally unregulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:04:35, June 26, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | "Space exploration and use shall be totally unregulated." "The normal health and safety at work regulations would still apply so there is no risk to our citizens in removing this adminastrative and bureaucratic requirement." Contradiction sandwich anyone? |
| Date | 02:37:41, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | No contradiction. Just an emphasis that the exploration of space is not to be regulated, the employment of people shall have the usual safeguards, nothing more is needed. |
| Date | 10:29:20, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | Seeing as this is what the Council had originally attempted to pass, you have our support. |
| Date | 05:39:12, June 27, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | Our support as well. |
| Date | 17:36:16, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | We were willing to support the Council's original bill subject to a commitment that Lodamun will not militarize space. Therefore we would request one restriction on space exploration and use, along these lines: "No permit shall be granted to weaponize space in any way." Kwame Suzuki Peace & disarmament critic |
| Date | 18:29:03, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | I believe that "totally unregulated." usually means "totally unregulated." |
| Date | 19:26:29, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | We promise that no permit will be issued for anything. We are intending to remove permits. |
| Date | 22:19:07, June 27, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | 'I believe that "totally unregulated." usually means "totally unregulated."' Then Lodamunian health and safety regulations are redundant? |
| Date | 02:20:23, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | Well then, we will oppose. However if the Amystian Council once again brings a bill deregulating all space uses with the exception of military, we will support it, as promised in the last debate on this topic. |
| Date | 04:30:23, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | I believe that the initiation of force perpetrated by a Lodamun citizen against another would fall under the government's jurisdiction no matter where the offense took place. To include it in this bill would seem redundant. |
| Date | 04:40:20, June 28, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | So the initiation of force perpertated by a Lodamunian against a foreign national would not be a responsibiity of our government, even if it happened on a Lodamunian spacecraft? |
| Date | 06:14:10, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | Let us see now. One of our citizens goes on holiday, and goes in his car. He gets to his destination, say the charming peninsula of Lukaron in the Republic if Likatonia. However on the way he decided to shoot five people at random from his moving vehicle. As we understand your position CNT/AFL this would make us, the government of Lodamun, responsible for this action. HOW? A spaceship as a private vehicle is the responsibility of its owner, not of the government of the nation it happens to come from. Military use would be necessarily government responsibility. Mercenary use would not. If some company wants to set up a fleet of mercenary space craft, good luck to them. They will be bankrupt in minutes. Spacecraft are fragile, delicate things that cost a fortune to build and to use. They are not military vehicles. Certainly we could assure the CCF-Greens that we, as a government, will not militarize space. If that was what her question concerning permits was directed at. |
| Date | 16:49:28, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | Our request is that private corporations also not be permitted to militarize space. The issue is not the use of force in space, it is the weaponization of space. |
| Date | 20:28:36, June 28, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | "A spaceship as a private vehicle is the responsibility of its owner, not of the government of the nation it happens to come from." How do you propose to enforce Lodamunian health and safety regulations then? |
| Date | 20:30:40, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | Not on board, any more than we would enforce them in a car. In the industry, manufacturing of parts, fuel etc. there the standard industrial regulations would apply. |
| Date | 20:32:15, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | @CCF We have presented our argument why this will not happen. We are ideologically opposed to government interference in business (either in regulation or in support), so we can not give a promise that no one would be stupid enough to try. |
| Date | 21:18:49, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | Question for the ASP: If one of our citizens were attacked in international territory, would you deem it the government's responsibility to investigate and intervene? |
| Date | 23:28:48, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | ASP -- your position is understood. I trust you in turn understand the reason the CCF-Greens intend to vote against a bill we would otherwise be happy to support. |
| Date | 01:46:05, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | OK, question answering session. @TiC. That would depend on how much confidence we had in the justice system of the country concerned. If there is a clear and open system of investigation, then no more than a consultation between our consul/diplomatic service and the police in the country should be required. If however there is no transparency in the justice system then it wouyld invoke considerable diplomatic effort to investigate and demand justice for our citizen. However this means real investigation and not an automatic presumption that our citizen was an innocent victim. @CCF-Greens. Yes we understand as we to are sticking to principles here. We regret but respect your decision. |
| Date | 07:57:23, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | "That would depend on how much confidence we had in the justice system of the country concerned. If there is a clear and open system of investigation, then no more than a consultation between our consul/diplomatic service and the police in the country should be required. If however there is no transparency in the justice system then it wouyld invoke considerable diplomatic effort to investigate and demand justice for our citizen. However this means real investigation and not an automatic presumption that our citizen was an innocent victim." [emphasis]International territory.[/empasis]: (parts of)oceans, antarctica, space, etc. Do you consider it to be the government's responsibility to protect its citizens wherever they may be, even if not a sovreign nation? CCF greens, we are sure that if there was any significant problem present, some (government, private, or other)force would be applied to prevent attacks. Either way, we do not see weapons in space being a serious problem, either the government polices space(outlaws wouldnt bother with permits anyway), or it doesnt. The situation will become apparent after the bill is implemented. Quick question: Does "space exploration" mean Near Earth Orbits too? Or only things that extend out of the earth's orbit? |
| Date | 23:14:49, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | We take space to mean anything outside of the planet's atmosphere. That is the definition that we would like to have used, where there is a specified gas pressure, say 0.05 atmospheres that defines the limit of the atmosphere. |
| Date | 06:12:55, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | Could you add that to the proposal? Also something about Lodamun citizens in space being afforded the same protections by our government as they would have if traveling in any other international territory? |
| Date | 01:42:50, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | The clause concerning protection of our citizens will only be effective at such time that a law system applicable to space is agreed, or when other extraterrestrial civilizations are dicovered. Until that time it is a moot point. |
| Date | 15:36:12, July 02, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | The argument regarding the militarisation of space still holds. As such it is regulation. The law should remain as it stands - with Amystian Council support for the law they passed, not as is suggested. |
| Date | 03:41:15, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Space Bill |
| Message | Oh well. C'est la vie. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 184 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 240 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 26 |
| Random fact: Your user name is not your party name. Choose a concise and easy to remember user name. You can change your party name at any point in time later in the game. |
| Random quote: "It will be years, not in my time, before a woman will become Prime Minister." - Margaret Thatcher |