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: National Defence Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rutanian Conservative 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: November 2325
Description[?]:
| An Act to help protect Rutania in times of war. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Civil defence is the government's policy on providing shelters to be used in the event of attacks on major cities, mainly nuclear attacks and bombing.
Old value:: Local authorities are responsible for building and maintaining shelters.
Current: The government builds and maintains a network of shelters across the nation.
Proposed: Every public building is required to feature provisions for civil defence and at least 50% of spaces must be allocated to private citizens.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Current: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Proposed: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change National service.
Old value:: There shall be no mandatory military or civilian national service.
Current: All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military.
Proposed: All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the export of weapons to other nations.
Old value:: The government allows conventional arms to be exported freely.
Current: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Proposed: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:23:31, December 06, 2006 CET | From |  Democratic Socialist's | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | We are in favour of a stronger approch to article 3, but are willing to accept this bill as is. |
| Date | 16:44:22, December 06, 2006 CET | From | National Radical Union | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | Why is this necessary? Our nation is a neutral democracy, period. |
| Date | 00:56:39, December 07, 2006 CET | From | Democratic Socialist's | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | Neutrality does not garuntee safty. This bill doesn't demade that we become agressive, only that we prepare to defend ourselves if the worst should happen. |
| Date | 01:00:35, December 07, 2006 CET | From | Rutanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | We agree. This doesn't mean we will go out and attack everyone. Just puts in place measures to help if we are dragged into a war. |
| Date | 04:59:15, December 07, 2006 CET | From | People's Party of Rutania | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | While the PPR supports the majority of this proposal, we vehemently oppose a draft of any nature. Therefore, we shall abstain from voting. |
| Date | 05:34:54, December 07, 2006 CET | From | Rutanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | Would you still oppose a draft in times of war? |
| Date | 06:27:36, December 07, 2006 CET | From | People's Party of Rutania | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | The government has no right to force an individual to put his life in danger. If the country were to be attacked, it's assumed that the people would more than willingly volunteer to defend their friends and family. Forcing one to fight does nothing but lower morale. Furthermore, when conscripting all individuals, the pace at which training is conducted has to be adjusted to the level of the lowest quality manpower, thus lowering the effectiveness of the force as a whole. Conscription is essentially chattel slavery. |
| Date | 09:02:19, December 07, 2006 CET | From | Rutanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | Conscription is not slavery. One, it is only to be used in protecting our country. Two, not all people volunteer to defend their friends and family as they only care for themselves. Three, It doesn't say in the bill that the term in the military must be served in the front line. It could be in the hospitals or somewhere similar. |
| Date | 22:02:02, December 07, 2006 CET | From | People's Party of Rutania | To | Debating the National Defence Act |
| Message | Conscription is involuntary labor that is demanded by an established authority. Conscripts' lives are placed in the hands of their superiors to be sacrificed at will. The fact that this is implimented to protect the country does not justify denying an individual his civil liberties. You're right that there would be individuals unwilling to serve, but the vast majority of people would. If the opposite were true and the majority cared only for themselves, it'd do no good to place these individuals into military roles. Who's to say that they wouldn't desert or simply refuse to comply with orders? After all, they have no interest in the well-being of others. Conscription replaces quality with quantity within the ranks and completely removes hard to replace members of the work force. At best, conscription during times of war will create a large and unwieldy army of soldiers with rudimentary training. It is best to stick with strictly professional armed forces. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 71 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 372 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 156 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions." - Robert Lynd |