Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: December 5460
Next month in: 03:17:30
Server time: 12:42:29, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): Brazil25 | h48191 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Auto Allowance bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: Malivia Democratic Party

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: September 2330

Description[?]:

Again

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date12:21:52, December 16, 2006 CET
FromMalivia Whig Party
ToDebating the Auto Allowance bill
MessageAye!

Date15:07:20, December 16, 2006 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Auto Allowance bill
MessageThough the MDP trumpets their ability to discern the public will, they are curiously deaf to more pressing, material concerns. Like the fact that our major cities have already taken significant steps to elimate automobile infrastructure from their urban centers. Returning cars to Malivian cities will set back 40 years of construction and development, creating economic upheaval at a time we can least afford it, and bringing back a mode of transportation singularly inefficient and wasteful.

What these two free market radical parties have shown is that they are more interested in their own political popularity than progress for Malivia. They are excellent at reading polls, but incapable of looking past their own noses. They seek a return to an obsolete past or short term gain, mortgaging our children's future to fund their present day ambitions. This is not about cars, it is about a way of life. This is about decreasing our impact on the earth by seeking a new way to live, one in which we join, rather than seperate, the parts of our cities. Arcologies are the way of the future, but it is a future that will require careful shepherding to achieve, and the government will be failing our obligations to our people if we cannot muster the strength to do so.

The car is not necessary. The car is wasteful. Our cities are already adapting. There is no reason to bring the personal car back to our cities other than a sycophatic desire to pander to the lowest common denominator of our society. Those who support this bill should be ashamed, but surely if they had a sense of decency and vision they would not have proposed this bill time and time again. If they are intent on destroying our society, let them do so without our support.

Date17:33:38, December 16, 2006 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Auto Allowance bill
MessageWe must agree with the LevP on this proposal. Individual cars lead to large tracks of space being wasted for roads and parking lots. Even limiting cars to one per household would be a step backwards. We have a solid development plan for adapting our cities, we preserve our environment from pollution and we eliminate a large waste of resources.
Malivia is unique in our ban of autos. We are the only open society which has eliminated them, and this creates tourism. Eliminating our ban now would result in a large loss of revenue, for little gain.

Date17:43:42, December 16, 2006 CET
FromMalivia Democratic Party
ToDebating the Auto Allowance bill
MessageTo sum up the LP:

1. The return of cars will set back 40 years of development
Counterargument: The banning of cars set back over 200 years of development. The people obviously do not mind returning to a network that provides mobile freedom.

2. Malivia can 'least' afford it.
Counterargument: The MDP believes the LP intends to hike taxes on every income, thus the argument we can least afford are not true. We can afford it, and the people don't mind.

3. The LP considers this 'free market radical parties'.
Counterargument: This depends on what perspective you're looking from. Most people would consider the Whigs and MDP centrists. The LP only considers these two parties radicals because the LP is so far left on economic issues, any semblance of free market is 'radical'.

4. The LP criticizes the MDP and Whigs of 'reading polls'.
Counterargument: The MDP counters that when 94% of Malivians want something, it isn't an issue of 'reading polls', it is an issue of being in touch with mainstream Malivia. It is rare for 94% of people to agree on anything, and yet they agree on this.

5. The LP condemns this bill as stunting 'progress'.
Counterargument: What the LP considers progress and what others consider progress are two different things. Not everyone has the same vision of progress as the LP, fortunately

6. The LP considers the auto 'wasteful'.
Counterargument: The LP is free not to own an auto if they do not desire one.

7: LP: Cities are adapting, no reason to change
Counterargument: Cities adapt to change all the time, usually due to popular will of the people. Cities will continue to adapt, and if 94% don't mind adapting to fit autos, then so be it.

8. LP: This is not about cars, but about a way of life
Counterargument: Incorrect. It is about both.

9: LP: Arcologies are the way of the future
Counterargument: Private autos and arcologies are not mutually exclusive. Each arcology will have a private garage for personal autos.

10: LP: Autos will 'mortgage' our childrens future
Counterargument: The LP attempting to incite strong words aside, the MDP notes that over 90% of parents in Malivia support bringing back private autos. Considering they know their children better than the government...we will pretend that the LP is just frustrated.

11: LP: It is pandering to the lowest common denominator
Counterargument: The MDP believes that the lowest common denominator in our society are those in government who feel it is their job to protect people from themselves. The MDP would rather focus on protecting people from others, and trusts the people to know and do what is right.

This is why the MDP is continually resonates with the people and electoral success, and the LP does not.

Perhaps if the LP would put more faith in the people, instead of their own biased and close minded extremist ideas, they would find themselves more receptive to the citizens of Malivia.

Date02:23:50, December 17, 2006 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Auto Allowance bill
MessageThose 'counter arguments' are the longest list of logical fallacies we've seen outside of the Malivia U's philosophy department. Full of strawmans, false conflations, false dichotomies ... it's a mess. We will say this, though.

The MDP has taken an incredibly myopic position in which five years is long term. Automobiles are not sustainable, regardless of whether they burn hyrdocarbons, because they use energy. The average electric car's batteries are roughtly equivalent to 18,000 laptop batteries. If we allow, conservatively, 15 million electric cars onto the road, that means each night there will be 27 trillion lap tops being plugged in as the cars charge for the night. Our power grid will fail under that kind of stress, require we both invest in new plants as well as new powerlines and transformers. Suddenly, the expenses start piling up.

And that's only if we're lucky enough to have all electric cars. The pollution created by all those 'clean burning' cars is going to be a nightmare in and of itself. Biofuels, like bio-diesel or ethanol, are hardly clean: they require huge amonts of energy to be created, and then still release pollutants into the atmosphere. From an economic standpoint, we're actually better off with gasoline because it requires so little energy to extract and refine, as opposed to ethanol, which takes directly from our food supply and then sucks down our energy supply to give us car fuel. Hardly efficient, hardly worth it.

This is about a future where we don't take more than the earth can provide to sustain ourselves. This is about a future where we don't pollute and level forests because it's convenient for us. Car culture was killing Malivia and it will kill Malivia again if we let it. It is heartbreaking that parties here are so caught up in their individual, selfish desires that they cannot look past their selves towards the future. Change is inevitable; progress is not. The MDP and MWP set themselves firmly in the path of progress, and here we mean in, if nothing else, the very material
meaning of the word. A carless society uses fewer resources and provides the same freedom of movement and services. We don't NEED cars, we WANT them, and it should be only children that fail to differentiate between the two.

The common denominator here is that the MDP is not listening to the statements of other parties, is not considering the merits of their arguments, and has no interest in understanding either. Each arcology will have a private garage? Are you familiar with the idea of an arcology at all? Creating a garage to house ten thousand cars is not just absurd, not just a waste of space, but defeats the entire point of arcologies. We could, if we wanted, create a military with no guns, because the two make about as much sense.

The voters did not elect the MDP and MWP to return cars, they elected them because they are the only parties on the right of the spectrum economically. To take the latter as a mandate for the former is the greatest fallacy of all. The merits of the case demand we keep cars off the road. Short sightedness demands just the opposite.

Date03:19:02, December 17, 2006 CET
FromMalivia Democratic Party
ToDebating the Auto Allowance bill
MessageHere we go again, just to sum up a few interesting points:

LevP: hose 'counter arguments' are the longest list of logical fallacies we've seen outside of the Malivia U's philosophy department. Full of strawmans, false conflations, false dichotomies ... it's a mess.
MDP: When someone can't argue with a counterargument, just call it strawman, false conflations, false dichotomies. Its a nice way to avoid addressing the counterarguments properly.

LevP: Automobiles are not sustainable, regardless of whether they burn hyrdocarbons, because they use energy. The average electric car's batteries are roughtly equivalent to 18,000 laptop batteries. If we allow, conservatively, 15 million electric cars onto the road, that means each night there will be 27 trillion lap tops being plugged in as the cars charge for the night. Our power grid will fail under that kind of stress, require we both invest in new plants as well as new powerlines and transformers. Suddenly, the expenses start piling up.
MDP: Exaggerations upon exaggerations. Malivia, and other nations, have had the automobile for hundreds of years, with no side effects of what the LevP has said here. Many nations still have the automobile with no side effects.

LevP: Hardly efficient, hardly worth it.
MDP: As before, the LevP does not have to use an auto. They can continue to use public transport. If others want to utilize a 'hardly efficient, hardly worth it' mode of transportation, the MDP believes it is their right.

LevP: Car culture was killing Malivia and it will kill Malivia again if we let it. It is heartbreaking that parties here are so caught up in their individual, selfish desires that they cannot look past their selves towards the future.
MDP: Exaggeration again. And this has nothing to do with individual, selfish desires of the MDP and MWP. It has more to do with providing a voice to the 94% of people who want mobile freedom.

LevP: he MDP and MWP set themselves firmly in the path of progress, and here we mean in, if nothing else, the very material
MDP: What the LevP considers progress, and what others considers progress, can be two different things. The LevP does not have a monopoly on the proper course of 'progress'.

LevP: A carless society uses fewer resources and provides the same freedom of movement and services. We don't NEED cars, we WANT them, and it should be only children that fail to differentiate between the two.
MDP: We don't need TVs either, we want them. Should we ban them too because they use up electricity? We don't need to eat meat , but we want to. Should we prohibit the eating of meat because some find it offensive?

Lev: The common denominator here is that the MDP is not listening to the statements of other parties, is not considering the merits of their arguments, and has no interest in understanding either.
MDP: The LevP is right. We're not listening to other parties, we're listening to the wishes of the electorate. That is what we were all elected for, correct? Perhaps the LevP has an objection to representing your constituents?

LevP: Creating a garage to house ten thousand cars is not just absurd, not just a waste of space, but defeats the entire point of arcologies.
MDP: Not really. The MDP is familiar with arcologies, and nothing in their planning prohibits parking spaces.

LevP: The voters did not elect the MDP and MWP to return cars, they elected them because they are the only parties on the right of the spectrum economically.
MDP: Actually, they elected us on the basis of both. If we were to disregard the will of 94% of the electorate on the auto issue, we would not have as many seats.





subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 92

no
  

Total Seats: 53

abstain
  

Total Seats: 55


Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363

Random quote: "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." - John F. Kennedy

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 62