Issue Advice - All Requests for Help on Decisions Here! - Page 2

Kassiopeia · December 29, 2002, 07:46

My 0.02 € :

Do not outlaw capitalism. Your tax rate will thank you. This is experience talking here!

GeneralTacticus · December 29, 2002, 08:12

How, exactly, did you 'outlaw capitalism'? What was the issue?

Kassiopeia · December 29, 2002, 08:29

Something like "Corporations fleeing your country because of excess regulation". The options were to either abolish some minor restriction, as per suggestion of the Chamber of Commerce, or do as a noted environmentalist says, i.e. "outlaw capitalism". Something about how the air was cleaner then ever before etc... If you've have it yourself you would probably remember from that (I hope).

GeneralTacticus · December 29, 2002, 08:30

No, I haven't. The last few issues I've had have been miners strikes and compulsory voting.

Kassiopeia · December 29, 2002, 08:41

Okay. But if you do get it, I strongly recommend against something as drastic as making capitalism illegal.

GeneralTacticus · December 29, 2002, 08:58

There was no need to make such a recommendation; I would have no intention of doing anything as drastic as that anyway.

Kassiopeia · December 29, 2002, 09:21

Ah well, then consider it was a general recommendation to anyone reading this thread.

Maniac · December 29, 2002, 10:32

Darn I knew it. By granting the uranium miners their pay rise my economy has changed from Thriving to Very Strong. Plus:

Quote:

and the nation is ravaged by daily union strikes.

Did I make the wrong decision after all?

At least I'm now an inoffensive centrist democracy. Good riddance with the corporate police states and capitalist paradises!

Drogue · December 29, 2002, 12:29

Your economy can handle it, I suggest it was a good move. And when you get the strikes issue up (I think I had one) vote against if you wish to remove the daily strikes.

Personally, I will outlaw cartels (companies getting together and fixing prices) as it serves no one, save the companies. I see trade unions as a cartel (workers getting together to fix wage) and so do no good for anyone except the workers, the general populace suffer with high prices. However, outlawing trade unions is not such a drastic thing for Akiria, since with excellent welfare, minimum wage laws, and an ethos of fair pay for a good days work, trade unions are not really needed, and hence hardly exist anyway. If they take their jobs, then they are getting better wages than they would if they take another job, or are happier in that job, otherwise they would move. Therefore if they are paid a less than they want, either it is because they are unemployable elsewhere (in which case social welfare and education will take ove rto help them) or they are demanding unrealistic wages. If it is now one of these, they can move jobs and be paid more.

Since we have a large public sector, that pays very good wages, there is little problem with worker unrest.

orange · December 29, 2002, 12:46

My economy has become stronger than ever, and my civil rights and political freedoms hover around the "World Benchmark" status

aahz_capone · December 29, 2002, 19:23

I got the same choice maniac, but I said to hell with the unions and put the discontent workers out in the streets! Don't mess with the system in FIR.

Whne unions and labour become as greedy and egotistical as the capitalists then they have to learn that they should be morally above such things.

Tomorow I will see the result

Dis · December 30, 2002, 04:01

I let the Uranium miners have access to some areas of the rainforest.

Now my national animal (the wolf) is dying out

GeneralTacticus · December 30, 2002, 04:52

I got the same issue, and picked the same option, but I haven't had any problems with deforestation.

Kassiopeia · December 30, 2002, 07:58

In my opinion the church and the government should be separate entities. Therefore, I selected (and suggest) option #3.

I kindly ask suggestions for this: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...mma/dilemma=7/

I plan to go for option #1, though #4, since my economy is in ruins, appeals to me too.

Vlad Antlerkov · December 30, 2002, 08:41

Kass, could you post the actual issue? That link just brings up that... freaky... eye.

Tass, I'd suggest #3 as well, for the same reasons Kass did.

aahz_capone · December 30, 2002, 08:59

ditto #3

Kassiopeia · December 30, 2002, 09:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
Kass, could you post the actual issue? That link just brings up that... freaky... eye.

Odd. Lemmy gave me a link like that and it worked, gave me the Boo! flag and all. Oh well, my bad.

The increasingly militant Animal Liberation Front struck again last night, freeing dozens of chickens bound for delicious snack packs.

1. "These nuts have got to be stopped," demands concerned consumer Randy Winters. "They need to face the fact people want snack packs, no matter how many innocent chickens must be sacrificed. Besides, chickens would do the same to us if they had the chance."

2. "These Liberationists are highlighting an important issue," pleads Hack Chicago. "Too often, animals are put through needless cruelty, just to make their flesh taste a little more deliciously succulent. I'm sure we could ban the more horrific abuses without putting too much of a dent in our national obesity figures. Couldn't we?"

3. "Animals have feelings too!" yelled protestor Randy McAlpin, before being set upon by hungry passers-by. "Free the animals! Ban meat-eating!"

4. Economist Peggy Thiesen has an alternative. "You don't need to take away the people's right to choose. You just need to build the costs of animal suffering into the price. A tax on meat-eating, in proportion to the amount of cruelty involved, would do the trick. Plus think of the benefit for the national coffers! Of course, poor people wouldn't be able to afford meat, but that's just more incentive for them to get jobs."

Since I don't care about animal rights, I'm leaning towards #1, but #4 is enticing since my income tax rate is still a tad too high (same old 73 %).

Drogue · December 30, 2002, 10:38

I have that too, and was thinking of either 2 or 4. I think 4 will put up your tax rate however, as it is an extra tax on meat. 4 is a good idea, but will a) stop poor people from having any meat, and b) let rich people torture animals if they wish. Therefore I think I'll go for 2

Drogue · December 30, 2002, 10:41

I have one that I can't decide. Nazi sympathisers rally. Do I ban it or allow complete freedom of speech. I've already allowed the racist TV show, and foul mouthed kids, so I think I might want to temper it a bit. However, I do not want violence, which I think will be the result of a far right rally, and my society is based on tolerance, which the far right are not. This is my dilemma, should I allow the rally to go ahead, or not, or dismiss it?

Kassiopeia · December 30, 2002, 11:30

Yes... should the intolerant be tolerated as well? Tricky. I think I would allow it. The reasons for any popularity of the extreme right are something that banning any rallies can't deal with. In other words, the rally is just the symptom of the real problem.

Kassiopeia · December 30, 2002, 11:33

Hmm, #4 on the chicken question indeed wouldn't be the way of a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise. Either I go with the political climate, #2, or I go by my own opinions, #1. My stance on animal rights has pissed off several teenaged girls already.

Vlad Antlerkov · December 30, 2002, 11:42

Ah, animal-rights. I went with #2 (didn't like either extreme, and didn't want to.

Drogue: Got that same thing this morning. I went with 2, mainly so the Nazis kept their right to make asses of themselves.

Drogue · December 30, 2002, 11:50

I no this is kinda cheating, but what's the result of allowing the Nazi's rally?

Vlad Antlerkov · December 30, 2002, 11:55

How the hell would I know?

I'd guess allowing it could result in a temporary decrease in civil rights, and banning it would result in a decrease in political rights...

Kassiopeia · December 30, 2002, 12:50

I have decided to go with #1 in the chicken question, just for the heck of it.

It might be that my political rights or civil liberties might drop from those, but I think restricting poultry industry would have even worse effects. And like I said, I don't give a **** about animals.

Drogue · December 30, 2002, 16:13

Now we see evil Kass

I've chosen to allow the Nazi rally, because I'm still peved that not allowing corporate sponsorship of political parties put my political freedom down to good (I want people to make up their opwn minds, not have votes (or even politicians) bought by companies). Hopefully this will put it back up to very good or excellent, and not add too much to crime.

Giovanni Wine · December 30, 2002, 18:52

I know it's already the second time I ask for help... but... I have no idea on what to do hee... I'm actually thinking of simply dismissing this issue, since I already made Organ Donations Compulsory.

Saluti

----------------------------------
Cash for Colons?

The Issue
Hospitals have requested that they be allowed to pay people for donating blood and other bodily organs, such as kidneys.

The Debate
"We remain critically short of blood plasma and various organs," says Wine One hospital administrator Pete Dodinas. "Especially hearts. A good heart is hard to find. But if we were allowed to pay for donations, we'd get more of them and could save more lives. Plus the donor takes home a few hundred drinks in compensation. Unless it's a post-mortem donation, of course. In that case we'd pay the family."
[Accept]

"Great idea," says social commentator Beth Utopia. "Except for one thing. You know who's going to be selling their organs? Poor people! They'll be so desperate for money that they'll sell their own kidneys. Well, a kidney. This is just another way for the rich to buy themselves a better life at the expense of the poor. It must be outlawed."
[Accept]
The Government Position
The government has yet to formalize a position on this issue.
----------------------

GeneralTacticus · December 30, 2002, 20:49

Quote:

I no this is kinda cheating, but what's the result of allowing the Nazi's rally?

It becomes illegal to make racist remarks in public. I banned it; I think other people's rights to go about their business without having these nutcases spreading hate overrides the Nazis' right to free speech.

Quote:

I know it's already the second time I ask for help... but... I have no idea on what to do hee... I'm actually thinking of simply dismissing this issue, since I already made Organ Donations Compulsory.

Saluti

----------------------------------
Cash for Colons?

The Issue
Hospitals have requested that they be allowed to pay people for donating blood and other bodily organs, such as kidneys.

The Debate
"We remain critically short of blood plasma and various organs," says Wine One hospital administrator Pete Dodinas. "Especially hearts. A good heart is hard to find. But if we were allowed to pay for donations, we'd get more of them and could save more lives. Plus the donor takes home a few hundred drinks in compensation. Unless it's a post-mortem donation, of course. In that case we'd pay the family."
[Accept]

"Great idea," says social commentator Beth Utopia. "Except for one thing. You know who's going to be selling their organs? Poor people! They'll be so desperate for money that they'll sell their own kidneys. Well, a kidney. This is just another way for the rich to buy themselves a better life at the expense of the poor. It must be outlawed."
[Accept]
The Government Position
The government has yet to formalize a position on this issue.
----------------------

I'd go with #1. If your hospitals really are suffering from shortages of organs, they need as many as they can get.

Drogue · December 30, 2002, 21:06

Id go with 1 too. They're needed, and if the poor don't want to sell, they don't. If its better than starving to death, then they might choose it. Besides, my hospitals are public, so everyonegets better treatment, and its cheaper than some ops that I'd have to sue instead, and more effective.

Dis · December 31, 2002, 04:52

Holy cow. I can't believe I'm asking for advice. I'm trying to find the libertarian answer here. I'm not sure.

The Issue
Several major city streets were clogged with bicycles this morning, as the environmental group 'Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad' staged a protest. Several hundred riders ambled through downtown streets, blissfully ignoring the torrent of abuse hurled at them by thousands of motorists running late for work.

The Debate
"People are sick of dirty, smelly automobiles," said protest organizer Charles Spirit. "They're choking the city, the environment--our lives! Cars must be banned!"
[Accept]

"The only thing people are sick of is long-haired idiots riding their bicycles at two miles an hour on major thoroughfares," says committed motorist Billy-Bob Hamilton. "People shouldn't be able to protest like this. The government needs to crack down on them."
[Accept]

The Automotive Manufacturers Association, meanwhile, has called for government support. "It's clear that we need to boost the level of automobile support in this country. This protest this morning is a clear indication of... um... anyway, we need more government funds."
[Accept]

There is no clear libertarian answer. I'm against banning automobiles. Esp. since they are a major part of my enconomy and the repesent the freedom of my citizens. I'm against cracking down on the hippies/bicylists because that would go against their civil rights. And I'm against using goverment funds, I need to boost my economy some more.