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: Space Exploration Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: January 2082
Description[?]:
| This bill will deregulate the space program and allow private corporations to finance the space program. This will free up a substantial amount of government money that is currently being allotted to the space program. Private companies will be able to dedicate more resources and money into the space program and increase it's potential in the long run. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards space exploration.
Old value:: The government shall fully fund a state-owned space agency which controls all national space-related activity.
Current: The government shall issue permits to private space-exploration companies.
Proposed: Space exploration and use shall be totally unregulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:26:11, July 16, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | We cannot agree with this ideal. The exploration of space should not be turned into a private enterprise and used to increase profit revenues for private companies. The exploration of space is for the betterment of mankind, and so should be operated in such a way, something which would be highly unlikely in the cut-throat and expensive private industry which requires short-term profit and short-term gain. |
| Date | 13:31:00, July 16, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | This bill will free up government money which can be used for more social or other programs in need. Private companies will finance private exploration. This will create more jobs in the private sector and allow for competition among companies. This has the better potential to discover substantial gains in space exploration. |
| Date | 13:34:22, July 16, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | But also the space program costs our government massive amounts of money. Private companies can pick up the slack without any loss to the overall betterment or progress of mankinds space exploration. |
| Date | 13:46:16, July 16, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | Private companies will only provide investment into those things that will provide them with the highest revenue stream. Within creating more jobs for the Private sector, that it is true, however the unregulated industries may not necessarily be safe. Testing will be curtailed in order to provide results for the lowest price. Long distance space-exploration would be dropped in order to use only the space around us as long distance exploration is extremely expensive. You seem to have a high regard of private companies, which I share within certain circumstances, however space exploration should not be allowed to be become some cheap, exploititative venture. Space could very easily become a marketing managers wetdream, with large open tracts that can be used as advertising space for their products. We cannot support the exploitation of space and the space industry by private corporations looking at nothing else bu their shareholders and profit margins. |
| Date | 13:55:39, July 16, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | Your objection is respectfully noted. But I believe private companies can make greater advances in space exploration than the current bloated government program that will spend trillions of dollars at the expense of all citizens. I feel it is a waste of government time and money for us(the government) to be at the forefront of space exploration, when private companies who specialise in this field can achieve better results without bankrupting our treasury. |
| Date | 14:15:37, July 16, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | In order for this bill to complete the voting process before the next election, I must send it to vote right now. I apologize for the lack of debate but I would like this bill to be completed before our next elections which fall on the month this bill comes to a close. |
| Date | 14:17:43, July 16, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | Would it not be prudent to attempt a middle way? Private companies are allowed with regulation. If the law was written in such a way so to remove the abilty of private companies to exploit their position, we may consider it. |
| Date | 14:19:38, July 16, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | Oops, I apologize. I thought elections were held January 2082, not April 2082. Sorry for the lack of awareness on my part. |
| Date | 17:38:52, July 16, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | We cannot support this bill. Deregulating space exploration in this way will, as with everything else that has been privatised, lead to shareholders' profits being put ahead of the greater good of mankind. Do we really want a future where corporate sponsorship and funding could lead to the "McDonald's Nebula" or "Planet Starbucks?" |
| Date | 19:05:43, July 16, 2005 CET | From | Right Party | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | Planet Starbucks sounds awesome.LOL Joke aside, our party is seriously concerned with this legislation.We fail to see the reason why taxpayers' money should go on space exploration instead of let's say, better health care plans for our citizens.Many people probably don't even care about rocket launches and scientific invasion of Mars, so why not leave them up to private companies who are actually able to make business of it. We are fully supporting this bill, and besides, that's what majority of our nation's citizens wish as well according to recent poll. http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8085/particracy/main/viewnews.php?newsid=3301 |
| Date | 21:45:45, July 16, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | I disagree. Complete deregulation means that the government has no control of what happens in space and could lead to future problems. We would accept the WSS compromise of private being allowed under strict regulations though. |
| Date | 23:45:00, July 16, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | @RP - Since when has <30% of the population been a majority? |
| Date | 13:22:06, July 17, 2005 CET | From | Right Party | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | UB: 29.45% of citizens voted for no regulations compared to 27.42% for total prohibition.Thus there's more in favor of private space exploration.If you add all other views granting private businesses more power, and compare to 12.83% of those who wish to keep the current legislation (government only), you get relative majority. |
| Date | 13:33:00, July 17, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | By denying private buisness to operate and instead allowing just the government to control the economy, our economy will remain stagnant with high unemployment, high taxes in order to finace the welfare state, and we will fall behind other nations in areas such as space exploration. Loosen the government chains on private companies a little and give our economy a chance to expand. |
| Date | 14:08:49, July 17, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | We don't deny the existance of private business even within the proposals, and current legislature above. We would also like to point out that a government controlled economy would, if controlled properly, lead to high employment, why, purely and simply because it would be within Government interest to maintain high employment. We would also point out that this is an individual issue within the economy, and not the economy as a whole. We operate private business throughout the economy, not least of all agriculture. Don't make baseless assumptions about either the state of our economy, or the way in which said economy is operated, especailly as the facts are against you. |
| Date | 15:42:12, July 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Space Exploration Act. |
| Message | Again, my emotions got out of hand. I meant no disrespect. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 134 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 174 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 35 |
| Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
| Random quote: "The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other." - Will Rogers |