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: Fairness Reform Act I

Details

Submitted by^[?]: Fair Capitalism 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: May 2076

Description^[?]:

This ensures every Alorian has the right to gamble with their money earned by hard work, and ensures no region has an economic slump because a freedom-restricting government wishes to withold gambling rights.

Proposals

Article 1

Proposal^[?] to change The right to gamble.

Old value:: The legality of gambling is a matter of local governments.

Current: Gambling is illegal.

Proposed: Gambling is illegal unless taking place in a licensed casino.

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date	02:06:27, June 26, 2005 CET
From	Freedom Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	No.

Date	10:50:03, June 26, 2005 CET
From	Free Democratic Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	Undecided here. Why is it better for local governments to decide on gambling than us, and also, why should we legalise it further?

Date	14:50:40, June 26, 2005 CET
From	Fair Capitalism Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	Gives people the choice, we'd have rehabilitation programs, and programs to stop addictions in the first place. It also means that regions get equal tourism, rather than influxes which other regions, and that region itself may not be able to handle.

Date	15:00:08, June 26, 2005 CET
From	Aloria Green Socialist Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	Agreed.

Date	17:13:50, June 26, 2005 CET
From	Social Conservative Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	But, if a region wants the tourism out of gambling, they just have to legalize it. It was their call. It's a hard call, but as long as I don't see any real benefits out of this, I think I'm going for a no.

Date	17:40:33, June 26, 2005 CET
From	Fair Capitalism Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	Other regions would suffer, because their government is too freedom-restricting.

Date	20:11:27, June 26, 2005 CET
From	Social Conservative Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	... a government they voted for themselves.

Date	20:39:59, June 26, 2005 CET
From	Free Democratic Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	Indeed, and as it is, perhaps some areas don't want gambling for whatever reason. The current law allows for there to be places where one can find a refuge from gambling. I don't think we want to turn Aloria into one big Las Vegas.

Date	21:04:32, June 26, 2005 CET
From	Aloria Green Socialist Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	People have the option. They are not forced to gamble. Freedom= choice.

Date	10:51:42, June 28, 2005 CET
From	Free Democratic Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	surely it is best to devolve it to the local level anyway? This allows for regional differences. Some areas may not want to have big casinos setting up in their backyard because it would detract from their economy, for example if their tourist industry relies on aspects other than gambling.

Date	17:57:50, June 28, 2005 CET
From	Aloria Green Socialist Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	This law doesn't force the building of casinos, it just legalises the ACT of gambling. Local councils still have the say so on planning permission and building matters.

Date	21:30:42, June 28, 2005 CET
From	Fair Capitalism Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	Also, they can limit it, but not completetly ban it.

Date	23:01:35, June 28, 2005 CET
From	Free Democratic Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	Ah, well we'll vote for this, if we are guaranteed investment in rehab programs for problem gamblers, and assurance that local councils/government etc. will be able to stop the building of casinos in their areas.

Date	23:15:15, June 28, 2005 CET
From	Social Conservative Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	In other words: if local governments can forbid gambling in their region?

Date	13:27:25, June 29, 2005 CET
From	Aloria Green Socialist Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	People will be able to gamble online, bet on sports, play slot machines in bars, play lotteries... Gambling isn't just casinos...

Date	16:06:50, June 29, 2005 CET
From	Free Democratic Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	I know, but that's where my concern lies. I'm not against gambling, I'm just worried about casinos

Date	16:32:49, June 29, 2005 CET
From	Social Conservative Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	same here. I understand this bill to be about casino-gambling, not about online stuff. There's no region that could stop their inhabitants from gambling online. Or at least, I don't see it possible.

Date	18:32:26, June 29, 2005 CET
From	Aloria Green Socialist Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	Legal gambling doesn't= casinos. ooc: gambling is legal in the UK, but there are hardly any casinos- they can hardly ever get planning permission...

Date	13:00:09, June 30, 2005 CET
From	Free Democratic Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	OOC: yeah, but the government is trying to relax the laws. Perhaps we can ensure that casinos are regulated?

Date	16:39:58, June 30, 2005 CET
From	Aloria Green Socialist Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	I believe that is a decent compromise. What about it, FCP?

Date	17:25:12, July 02, 2005 CET
From	Fair Capitalism Party
To	Debating the Fairness Reform Act I
Message	Ok, only in regulated casinos it is then.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote

Seats

yes

capital-communism party (53)

Total Seats: 53

Total Seats: 98

abstain

Total Seats: 249

Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar).

Random quote: "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." - Ayn Rand

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 82