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: Loyal Military Act
Details
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: November 2317
Description[?]:
| Specifically the Religio Trigunia, no discrimination against race |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Discrimination in the military on grounds of race/religion.
Old value:: Any adult citizen can serve in the military, discrimination for racial or religious reasons is prohibited.
Current: Any adult citizen can serve in the military, discrimination for racial or religious reasons is prohibited.
Proposed: Candidates must be of a certain race/religion to be armed or take part in combat.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:15:40, November 20, 2006 CET | From |   TSDRP | To | Debating the Loyal Military Act |
| Message | Ok, hopefully the fascist party will come online xD |
| Date | 20:37:12, November 21, 2006 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Loyal Military Act |
| Message | This is a tyrannical proposal, so of course we oppose it. However, we are also unsure of what you hope to accomplish by it. Are you an imperialist who wishes to send our citizens to fight and die in foreign adventures of conquest? In which case, surely you would want to maximise the pool of your potential troops/victims. Alternatively, you might be a pacifist who does not believe in military aggression, in which case why have only your favoured race/religion (or alternatively enemy race/religion) on the payroll? If you have your preferred group (presumably because they will be more loyal to their master), wouldn't you want to protect them by augmenting them with as many people who are not openly hostile to you as possible? Alternatively if you have your least preferred group (after all, if people are going to die, they might as well be people you dislike), does it really seem safe to limit your military protection to people who dislike you? We're curious as to why you think this is a great idea. |
| Date | 20:41:39, November 21, 2006 CET | From | TSDRP | To | Debating the Loyal Military Act |
| Message | If you had looked at the laws implemented in Trigunia you would have realised that membership of the state religion is now compulsary. Therefore for someone to even be capable of joining the military they need to be of that religion. This is just a formality, making it official. |
| Date | 23:31:34, November 22, 2006 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Loyal Military Act |
| Message | Yes, I am aware that membership of the state religion is compulsory. However, there are always people who seek to avoid committing fraud by joining a religion that they do not believe, while at the same time trying to conceal the fact from TUP death squads. Some of these people may wish to protect our nation from foreign aggression (although I suspect most would recognise that the greater danger to their lives and liberties comes from their existing rulers rather than prospective foreign ones). However, thanks for clearing up the reason for your proposal, namely that it is redundant. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 210 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 232 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 113 |
| Random fact: "Spamming", or the indiscriminate posting of unsolicited messages, is not allowed. |
| Random quote: "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." - Ayn Rand |