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: Devolution Act
Details
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 2306
Description[?]:
| An act to get rid of powers which central government does not require, and impose them on governments of states |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the organization of police/law enforcement
Old value:: There is a national police department, funded by the government.
Current: There is a national police department, funded by the government.
Proposed: The operation and funding of the police is left to local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Funding of public transport (where applicable).
Old value:: Public transport is fully user-pays.
Current: Public transport is fully subsidised by the government.
Proposed: Local governments decide upon the funding policy.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:05:10, October 28, 2006 CET | From |  Liberty Party | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | We support article 1 but oppose article 2 |
| Date | 21:07:11, October 28, 2006 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | Incidentally, article 2 is not an act of devolution it is an act of centralisation. A fully user-pays system is fully devolved - the individual is utterly sovereign and can decide whether to support the system or not. Local government imposing a forced public sector system is more centralised than that, even if it is less centralised than having the national government imposing the system. |
| Date | 18:28:01, October 29, 2006 CET | From |  TSDRP | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | No, as Local government will decide whether public transport should be fully user pays or not. The previous method removes the freedom of Local Government to capitulate to popular opinion in that region if it so happens to be of the more socialist kind. Giving a minority the freedom (if that is the situation) to pay for public transport is removing the right of the majority to have a system which they desire. Although Anarcho-Capitalists argue that Tyranny endorsed by the majority is as bad as tyranny which is not supported by the majority, this is simply a choice between tyranny endorsed by the majority and tyranny endorsed by a minority, the latter of which is far worse. |
| Date | 21:58:27, November 04, 2006 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | The previous method did not 'remove' any freedom of local government, since it is not a natural or pre-existing power of local government, it would not be accurate to describe the non-delegation of that power from the citizens to the local government as 'removal'. Similarly, the pre-existing situation was one where the government had not illegitimately obstructed the right of the individual to exercise their natural right of freedom of contract. Such an invasion is not a natural right of government or any group of people and accordingly it is not for the government to 'give' those rights to the individual. The contrary must necessarily true - the individuals give, or refuse to give, power to the government. Finally, I do not think you understand what the word 'tyranny' means. Refusing to consent to an act of robbery is not tyranny, it is merely exercising one's natural freedom to dispose of his own property as he sees fit. Now, if a minority were permitted to rob the majority, that would of course be tyranny, which we would oppose as strongly as you, but simply demanding to be left alone is never tyranny. If you feel so strongly that the majority should have access to a non-user pays transport system, then we have no objection to a voluntary organisation springing up whereby socialists can subscribe a fixed fee or percentage of income/assets (depending on that organisation's freely chosen articles) in order to share in a voluntary communal transport system. Since it is your position that this is what the majority wants, then there should be no shortage of subscribers. Of course, this would deny you the power to plunder the minority to fund your pet projects, which is what socialists are really about. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 294 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 94 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: For more information on Particracy's former colonial nations, check out http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6640 |
| Random quote: "Only the educated are free." - Epictetus |