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: Military Reform Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: MMP (Maoist People's 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: June 2328
Description[?]:
| A Bill designed to increase the scope of our military in order to meet the challenges posed to our national security by such organizations as Black October |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Current: The state owns all defence industries.
Proposed: The state owns all defence industries.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change National service.
Old value:: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve either a term in the military or a lesser paid term of civilian national service, at their option.
Current: There shall be no mandatory military or civilian national service.
Proposed: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve a term in the military.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:52:03, December 11, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | As to article 1, we need the increased effeciency and innovation inherent in priivately owned defence industries. Out security is too vital to be entrusted entirely tio bureaucrats. Article 2 makes no provision for those with valid moral objections to military service, whereas the current policy does. Therefore, we oppose the entire bill. |
| Date | 21:59:11, December 11, 2006 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | We must agree with the ARLP on both objections to this bill. We particularly believe that having both private and government owned defense industries, as we have now, is the best of both worlds. We reject the notion that private industry is automatically more efficient; but competition is almost always more efficient, and having private companies competing with public companies should make both more efficient. |
| Date | 01:23:30, December 12, 2006 CET | From | MMP (Maoist People's Party) | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | We find i amusing that the ARLP would entrust our defense to petty capitalist who do not have our own defense as their cheif aim, but rather profit. In the end, profit will be placed before effectiveness and we will see unwielding government contracts for farsical weapon systems put in place by these companies rather than effective weapons system. Private competition does not breed effective products, that is a farse purported by capitalists and their dogs. In the end, as long as the company can convince the buyer, namely our government, that what they are selling is in our interests their objective will be perceived. They spend more money on adversting and public relations as opposed to research and development for their products, and the publicly foolishly buys into this. |
| Date | 02:26:02, December 12, 2006 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | We aren't entrusting anything fully to capitalistic military companies. We can allow them to bid against our state owned industries and take the better bid. The PLP is quite aware of the many flaws in pure capitalism, but sees the government stepping in to be sure that all people have the necessities (in this case including national defense), and protecting people from monopolistic practices. We can't justify refusing to allow a private company to build a weapons system if in that particular case it can build it better and cheaper than the government, even after profit is taken. We would stand firm against full privatization as well, but the public/private competition seems like the ideal model for something of this sort. Neither the government nor the private sector is always more efficient; but both are more efficient than they would otherwise be, when they have to compete. |
| Date | 19:13:47, December 12, 2006 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | These are dark times. Black October is a threat that we must recognise, and take steps to thwart. However, too much change, to many new laws, and they score a victory by influencing our way of life. There are many benefits to a nationalised defence industry. Greater input into development, potentially increased security, and less PR issues. There are also benefits to enforced national service, both socially, and economically. The LRP would, for an inteim period, support the first measure, if that period was a) clearly defined, and b) subject to review within specific and short timescales. However, as regards article 2, anyone who does not wish to serve is a security risk if forced, or a burden if punished. Neither of these are desirable, and neither further the safety and security of our nation, and our people. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 47 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 253 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 51 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "The political ballot box stands for willingness to be ruled by somebody other than yourself." - Alvin Lowi, Jr. |