Issue Advice - All Requests for Help on Decisions Here!

reismark · December 27, 2002, 16:57

The Commonwealth of Alien Races
My friends,

There is an issue before the government of the Commonwealth at this point which is particularly interesting and has the possibility to be both influential and trivial at the same time. We would request some assistance in deciding how to act, or even to act at all.

Several consumer interest groups have lodged complaints with the Federal Communications Center over the perceived lack of diversity in - believe it or not - the Commonwealth's television soap operas.

Some of these consumer groups feel it is best for the government to act to rectify such a shortcoming by setting minority quotas, while other groups feel the government should not set quotas, but instead encourage minority hiring by providing grants for those who portray minorities in a positive light. Of course, the television studios would rather we just stay out of it.

The Commonwealth does not want to undertake any actions that would alienate the general public, but we have always found diversity to not be a problem, and we do not wish to make it one. We await the counsel of our wise friends before choosing to take action.

Sincerely,

Prime Minister

Prime Minister Reismark Basheerin
Commonwealth of Alien Races
Region of Apolyton

Maniac · December 27, 2002, 18:09

Option 1 of course. As is already done in the Belgian city Gent for example, the inner city should be free from car traffic. It makes it safer, it is environmentally cleaner, and it promotes the use of public transport instead of everyone their own vehicle, which is very inefficient.

orange · December 27, 2002, 18:17

/me of Maridia says: Ignore the issue...let progress and technology sort it out...don't take a clear stance with either the green freaks or the motorists. The people have a right to protest, and if people agree wth their message, car usage will go down.

Maniac · December 27, 2002, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
However that may hurt my economy

You are quite right-wing, Stalin... It would make your economy more left-wing, not hurt it. I really hope you can think some more nuanced than the "no public sector = good for economy" & "grand public sector = bad for economy" representation of the NationStates site.

Maniac
Leader of a Right-wing Utopia...

Clarification: I would of course only ban cars in the city core. Outside I would allow it. But as that option doesn't exist, I'd just pick the closest one...

orange · December 27, 2002, 18:29

Maridia applauds your decision, Tassadar

Maniac · December 27, 2002, 18:34

If I would dismiss every issue where I didn't agree with any of the choices, I doubt I'd have voted on anything yet. But it's your choice.

I only wonder what's so fast with and what's the civil liberty in everyone driving with their own individual car in a traffic jam...

H Tower · December 27, 2002, 18:40

reismark, i would leave it up to the TV networks

reismark · December 27, 2002, 18:43

H Tower: That's what we're thinking of doing, but the question remains, is the issue important for the Commonwealth's government to actually make a statement to that effect, or should we just ignore the situation and let these groups settle their own disputes?

Giovanni Wine · December 27, 2002, 18:50

The Kingdom of Wine believes that Politics should not interfere with TV Soap Operas, if some consumers don't like what they are viewing, they should just switch channel, it will be a concern for the network to have more diversity in their channels if they want those people to watch their network.

Saluti
King Giovanni of Wine

H Tower · December 27, 2002, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by reismark
H Tower: That's what we're thinking of doing, but the question remains, is the issue important for the Commonwealth's government to actually make a statement to that effect, or should we just ignore the situation and let these groups settle their own disputes?

the government is there for a reason, to make decisions guiding the national policy, if dismissing is the same as choosing an option, i think you should choose the option, otherwise its a cop-out way to avoid any repercussions you may receive.

*The President of the Dominion of Zoran makes a note that Commonwelath leader has suprisingly little backbone

orange · December 27, 2002, 19:06

The USSM concurs with the fine assessment of the Kingdom of Wine

reismark · December 27, 2002, 19:10

The Commonwealth of Alien Races' government has made a statement that it will not get involved in the dispute between consumer advocacy groups and the television networks. (I chose the third option.)

Thanks, guys!

Giovanni Wine · December 28, 2002, 18:07

The Kingdom of Wine would like to ask for help from the other Apolytonians on this issue:

--------------------
Automobile Manufacturing Workers Strike!

The Issue
Workers across the nation have gone out on indefinite strike over what they claim are substandard wages in the Automobile Manufacturing industry.

The Debate
"We are the backbone of this country, and we demand a fair wage rise!" says union leader Pete Longfellow. "I don't think a 20% increase over two years is too much to ask. Unless the government forces employers to give us our due, we'll shut this whole industry down! Let's see how well Wine's economy manages without any Automobile Manufacturing, huh?
[Accept]

"We pay our employees very generous wages," says employer representative Peggy McAlpin. "Especially when you consider that without us, they'd be OUT ON THE STREET. Hear that, you scumbags? OUT ON THE STREET! Anyway, my point is, if you cave in, you make our entire industry uncompetitive. You can't do that in the global marketplace. It'll hurt the whole country. The best solution, economically speaking, would be to relax industrial laws and allow us to fire troublemakers on the spot."
[Accept]

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...on/nation=wine
---------------------

What should I do?

Saluti
King Giovanni of Wine

reismark · December 28, 2002, 18:19

My friend:

The total shutdown of the automobile industry would be likely to bring a huge hit to even the best of economies. Considering that, the less-than-novel attitude of the automobile company spokeperson, and your nation's somewhat high tax rate of 34%, we think it would be wise for the government to step in and ensure that the automobile workers' union receives a fair wage increase.

Sincerely,

Prime Minister

Prime Minister Reismark Basheerin
Commonwealth of Alien Races
Region of Apolyton

Maniac · December 28, 2002, 18:35

I currently have the same problem with my uranium miners. I chickened out so my current opinion is to dismiss. A wage increase of 20% is quite a lot, and I don't want to harm my Thriving economy. On the other side, I do want to keep social laws protecting employees against being sacked just like that, so the other option appeals even less. I can only hope the miners will get tired of striking and will get back to work, maintaining the status-quo.

reismark · December 28, 2002, 18:50

Maniac: A wage increase is not likely to hurt the economy - in fact, it is likely to help the economy since these workers will now have more money to funnel into real estate and commercial purchases and ventures. A uranium workers' strike will not have the far-reaching effects that an automobile workers' strike would, but it would still damage the economy, especially if uranium production plays a key role in it.

Giovanni Wine · December 28, 2002, 18:56

Ok, considering that the Automobile industry is the only one I have in the Kingdom, I've decided to allow the workers a 20% wage increase, hoping that they will spend those money to buy new cars.

Saluti

GeneralTacticus · December 28, 2002, 19:04

I've got the same problem as Maniac, and I've also got to deal with the issue of compulsory voting. I think I'm just going to give the Uranium workers their pay rise, but does anyone have any ideas for the voting issue? The choices are:

1) Keep it voluntary (I'm leaning towards this one).

2) Make it compulsory.

3) Abolish elections altogether.

reismark · December 28, 2002, 19:08

Since the Commonwealth prides itself on human and civil rights, in your position, we would most likely leave elections voluntary.

Maniac · December 28, 2002, 19:19

Since the Commonwealth prides itself on human and civil rights and duties, and wants to make sure the lower classes, who always vote less when elections aren't compulsory, are also represented correctly in the election results, in your position, we would most likely make elections compulsory.

Oh btw, I'll give the miners their pay rise after all then.

GeneralTacticus · December 28, 2002, 19:23

The only problem with that is, what if none of the candidates are satisfactory? Then compulsory voting just gives legitimacy to elections that by rights it shouldn't.

Giovanni Wine · December 28, 2002, 19:28

I had that issue, actually it was my very first one, I've decided to make it compulsory, and the results were that i lost some civil and political freedom.

Therefore I suggest to keep it voluntary

Saluti

GeneralTacticus · December 28, 2002, 19:34

Well, I've decided to keep it voluntary, and the legislation on both issues is currently pending.

Maniac · December 28, 2002, 19:35

Then voters should just write "bunch of idiots" on their election form.

I believe in Belgium a few percentages (certainly less than five) of the election forms are blank or declared illegal. So if you really don't want to vote on anyone, you still have that option.
But the compulsory system certainly gives a more accurate representation of societal currents. Parties can't just ignore certain social groups because they vote less.

Edit: So as a result left-wing parties will be better represented in government. Those parties will make laws that benefit the lower social groups eg cheaper education & social welfare, so those groups actually get MORE liberties. Conclusion: Make your people free! Make voting compulsory! (I love such apparent contradictions.

)

GeneralTacticus · December 28, 2002, 19:45

Well, I say that if people don't want to vote, screw them, that's their problem. It's not the government's job to protect stupid people from themselves - only to protect the rest of society from stupid people.

Maniac · December 28, 2002, 19:51

Well then you should protect the part of the lower classes, that want to make their voice heard, against that stupid ignorant part of the lower class with the opinion that all politicians suck and that voting doesn't help. Those ruin the future of the more ambitious lower class people.

GeneralTacticus · December 28, 2002, 19:57

Democracy isn't about forcing people to look out for their own interests. If the ambitious lower class people can persuade the rest to vote for them, good; if not, why should people be forced to vote for them? Or anyone else, for that matter? That isn't democracy.

Maniac · December 28, 2002, 20:15

I never said they should be forced to vote for those ambitious lower classers!

Anyway, my concern, contrary to yours if I interpret you correctly, isn't freedom über alles, but checks & balances. Hence our different opinion I guess... Voluntary voting gives overrepresentation of certain groups.

The amount of freedom people actually get can be seen as a clock curve. If the government doesn't give any civil liberties, the people don't have any freedom logically. But if they allow everything on the fields of ethic, politics and economy, people aren't free either. Then you get anarchy, corporate monopolies, populist or corporate-funded/controlled politicians etcetera. The middle ground gives the most freedom, even if that involves taking some apparently freedom-restricting measures like compulsory voting. If that makes me undemocratic, well then I'm happy to be no democrat...

PS: oh yeah, this clockcurve idea is why I consider extreme-libertarians or people like Archaic actually totalitarians. Contraria sunt Complementa. Opposites touch.

GeneralTacticus · December 28, 2002, 20:22

Quote:

I never said they should be forced to vote for those ambitious lower classers!

Well, they have to vote for somebody, don't they? And I thought the reason you were in favour of compulsory voting was to get them to vote for said lower classers.

Quote:

Anyway, my concern, contrary to yours if I interpret you correctly, isn't freedom über alles, but checks & balances. Hence our different opinion I guess... Voluntary voting gives overrepresentation of certain groups.

Yes, but it's a voluntary under-representation. If they actually care, they can vote; no-one's stopping them. Besides, what evidence is there that the lower classes don't vote as much as the upper? In places like the US, I can see that happening, but Centralis is not the US, and it won't become it any time soon...

Quote:

The amount of freedom people actually get can be seen as a clock curve. If the government doesn't give any civil liberties, the people don't have any freedom logically. But if they allow everything on the fields of ethic, politics and economy, people aren't free either. Then you get anarchy, corporate monopolies, populist or corporate-funded/controlled politicians etcetera. The middle ground gives the most freedom, even if that involves taking some apparently freedom-restricting measures like compulsory voting. If that makes me undemocratic, well then I'm happy to be no democrat...

I understand what you mean, and I agree with you to a point, I just disagree as to where the proper middle ground is.

Dis · December 29, 2002, 04:29

bah! I don't need any advice. It's my nation, and I will run it to the ground myself. Actually no, I think I'm doing pretty well. Libertarian is the way to go.