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: The Youth
Details
Submitted by[?]: Likaton Coalition of the Willing
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: February 2352
Description[?]:
| We need to ensure we protect our potential, by nuturing our Youth. No child should be placed with adoptive parents that are unsuitable. We should give our young people the maximum time to develop, maintaining education, be it skills, knowledge or creativity based, until a person reaches 21. We also propose a trial peroid of allowing regulated private schools, to allow analysis of of the cultural impact and fairness of such a programme. This final provision should be reviewed in 10 years time; the start of 2361. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Current: Regulation is used to screen out only those with a previous history of child abuse.
Proposed: Adoption is strictly regulated by the government. Only by passing several tests and by following an intensive program applicants can adopt children.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The age until which students, if education were to be compulsary, are required to be educated (limited between 16 and 21).
Old value:: 18
Current: 21
Proposed: 21
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The age at which a person is considered an adult (limited between 12 and 24).
Old value:: 18
Current: 18
Proposed: 21
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The education system.
Old value:: Education is entirely public and free; private schools are banned.
Current: There is a free public education system and a small number of private schools, which are heavily regulated to ensure they teach adequate skills and information.
Proposed: There is a free public education system and a small number of private schools, which are heavily regulated to ensure they teach adequate skills and information.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:28:31, January 28, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the The Youth |
| Message | None of these ideas is awful, yet none is one we can support, either. There has to be an arbitrary age of adulthood. No matter the age, some people not ready will be deemed to be adults and others who are ready will not. 18 seems to us like the best arbitrary cutoff, with the admission that any is arbitrary, and additionally that if it were to change we would prefer it being raised to it being lowered. We definitely believe that the limits to required education should be to require it through high school. We certainly want to encourage college attendance, a reason we pushed for and eventually achieved free college tuition, with some compromises to the LITP to address concerns about professional students. However, we do not want to force it upon people. Stricter adoption regulation is a tempting idea, and one we are somewhat on the fence about. Although if it were within its own bill we would listen to any arguments for it and would be open to persuasion, our instinct is that almost any halfway reasonable family with no history of abuse is preferable to foster or group homes. Our problem with even secular private schools is simply equality of opportunity. We believe in charter schools, as we believe parents should have some alternative to public schools. A key with charter schools is that they are free and thus equally open regardless of parental income. Private schools are not free, and thus if they provide a better education (and if they don't there is no point in having them), that denies equality of opportunity to children of less wealthy parents. |
| Date | 01:37:49, January 29, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the The Youth |
| Message | We accept the points made by the PLPL, but ask one question; Is it fair, or just, to deny a better education to a child whose parents can pay for it, purely because they can pay for it? |
| Date | 04:18:34, January 29, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the The Youth |
| Message | We feel it is fairest to ensure that all children have an equal opportunity at a good education regardless of their parents' means. The way we would ask the question is: Is it fair and just to intentionally allow a system where children fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families are educated better than those who are not? One does not choose one's parents, and has no particular right to better opportunity because of one's parents' wealth. We normally support regulated private services to operate if they can compete with free public services-- because in most such cases we find it fair that the wealthy can get better services with the money they have themselves earned, as long as we are sure to make sure-- as with health case and nurseries, as two examples-- that adequate services are freely available to all. It would be consistent with where we stand on most other issues to feel that public and private schools should be permitted to compete. The difference is that in this case we are speaking of levelling the playing field, in addition to which we support allowing charter schools, which are funded and regulated by the government but not run by the government, as the alternative to the publicly run system. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 73 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 104 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 22 |
| Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner. |
| 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 |