House Bill: The Department of Peace Resolution (Failed)

[Enduro]

The amendment has been adopted err, damn its too early still.

Where's the "we can't have suggestions" crowd?

What do you mean?

Whenever a bill suggests something, a player comes out to denounce suggestions in bills. That's not bad, I just like making fun of people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment now has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So any further amendments to remove such wording?

[Leinad]

I'll make it known publicly what I've said many times in IRC: this is redundant and there is no guarantee it will do anything at all to help peace. Consider the fact that most policies are done with good intentions--or at least spun that way. Interventionist foreign policy, for example, is often done under the utopian banner of spreading democracy or what have you.

Yes, we do, but is their major goal peace? No. The same goes to the SoS. Neither are tasked with defending the fundamental human right of peace.

Well if the goal of our foreign policy isn't peace, in one way or another, then what the hell is it?!?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea that if they make reports on peace they are "ignoring their other duties" is bizarre considering that a quick look at basically every SoIA or SoS office clearly shows you any "other duties" are sufficiently ignored as-is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, you can't just wave away unintended negative consequences by saying that that wasn't the legislation's goal. I mean if you write legislation that accidentally puts a nuclear test site in midtown Manhattan you can't respond with "ensuring the well-being of New York is not the goal of this legislation."


Anyway, I have to say there is no way I can support the Ministry of Peace Department of Peace. I could amend it into something better if you guys really want to make something good from this.

[NeverAgain]

I am going to address this in segments.

One:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cool. That's not what this resolution does. I don't think through this resolution's statement of "assisting peoples struggling with violence, both in foreign lands and at home" actually meant "invade the middle east. spread democracy."  But who knows.

Two:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keeping our reputation abroad secure is really the major goal of the Secretary of State. State has an important role in foreign peace, undoubtedly, but that isn't the major goal of the Department, and merely a role added on over the years. This resolution's new commissioner will not be taking away that task but doubling down on it, and ensuring that we really put the ideals of peace and non-violence (for both foreign and domestic affairs) on an equal playing field that our other needs and desires are.

Three:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I mentioned, the scope of the resolution is not about the other departments. The mentioning of "peace reports" produced by other departments, is a suggestion, but I think just is not #1 satisfactory to the real demand for peace affairs to be part of the daily dialogue, and #2 seems a bit silly when looking at the fact that these other departments should not be tasked with peace, in comparison to their much more targeted and direct duties. That's why establishing this commissioner to be able to allow these said departments to do their targeted tasked, while also working with them to ensure peace is upheld.

Four:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This resolution is not causing the inactivity of other departments? Their inactivity seems to be the executive's and executive's alone. This actually got me going on the issue of  activity and the demand for it from our executive departments, and so we can address that at a later date (a conversation I would love to have, and we desperately need). But I don't see where this causes a "negative consequence" on the other executive departments. My statement had nothing to do with the perceived negative consequences on other departments, as I see there to be none directly stemming from the establishment of this commissioner.

Five:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, first off, I am sorry to hear you'll not be supporting it. Second of all, I think "making something good out of it" is not really necessary, if your new proposal is not about creating a Commissioner for Peace, which we are here to discuss. Third of all, if you do have amendments or other thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

On the issue of amendments, Mr. Speaker, would you mind clarifying what you mean here:

So any further amendments to remove such wording?

[Leinad]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cool. That's not what this resolution does. I don't think through this resolution's statement of "assisting peoples struggling with violence, both in foreign lands and at home" actually meant "invade the middle east. spread democracy."  But who knows.

I mean if CheneyLover1999 is appointed Minister of Peace I doubt he'd give a flying fudge what your original intentions were.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keeping our reputation abroad secure is really the major goal of the Secretary of State.
[/quote]

Uh...are...are you really telling me that PR is more important than peace.................................

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This resolution is not causing the inactivity of other departments? Their inactivity seems to be the executive's and executive's alone. This actually got me going on the issue of  activity and the demand for it from our executive departments, and so we can address that at a later date (a conversation I would love to have, and we desperately need). But I don't see where this causes a "negative consequence" on the other executive departments. My statement had nothing to do with the perceived negative consequences on other departments, as I see there to be none directly stemming from the establishment of this commissioner.
[/quote]

Sorry, still hate the idea of pointless offices. Like this really makes no sense and I've tried to explain this you but there is never any ground made. I have no idea why you are so in love with this idea--if you aren't willing to admit you're wrong or just don't understand why it's so bad--I just have no idea. But I guess you have the right to hold onto it, and I guess there is comfort in holding onto bad ideas. Clearly there is nothing I can do but vote against it and hope the other members vote against it as well, and we can put this unfortunate episode behind us.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, first off, I have a hard time seeing a Trumpesque appointment of someone of that nature to this Commission. Secondly, I would doubt that this person (a war seeking hawk, as I believe the analogy is portraying) would accept a position with the set boundaries like this Commissioner, due to the fact that they of course have zero control over our military and are tasked only with peacekeeping operations involving other departments. My "original intentions" are those that are displayed in the bill and I would find it quite impossible to see how such a person would be able to pursue hawkish goals through this Commission. Third off (sidenote), the blame would and should be on the President that would appoint such a person, not this commission's strict guidelines that would likely prevent such a person from being appointed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I am stating the purpose of the Secretary of State. It was designed, originally, to protect and serve Atlasian interests abroad. I entirely think that Peace must be upheld over that, that's why I am so committed to the establishment of this Special Commission.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This office has a clear point - to protect peace. I guess I am in the same boat, on how you think that this makes no sense. I am perfectly fine with disagreement, and in fact thrive on it. You "attempting to explain it to me" is really a pretentious ideal here. I love debate, but when you apparently walk into any discussion with the intent of explaining why they are lesser to your own ideals, and not the disagreements over the issue, then no ground will be made. This is about the Commission of Peace and the possible issues with that, I have been more than happy to address other ideas as I did early on and am doing through discussion.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not "in love" with this idea, I believe it is a necessity in our current world. We see a world that has never been so close to war, specifically nuclear war, since 1953 as shown by the famed doomsday clock. We see a world that is at the threat of man-made global climate change that will cause the polar ice caps to melt leading to the sinking and flooding of many of our world's cities, the decimation of our wildlife both animal and plant, and new massive natural disasters, the likes of which the world has never seen. So, am I in love with this idea? No. I believe that we MUST do this to secure the future of our world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thank you for your assurance of my rights. I do not believe it is a "bad idea", and I do take offense (as I assume the other members who have and are attempting to build on this idea) that you are making an arbitrary decision to not talk about the content and details of this bill, and instead succumb to petty whines against these ideas that many have spent time trying to improve.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other's ideas and bills of which you disagree with are "unfortunate episodes"? I would hope that this ideal won't continue as you take your office, as debating on the issues (whether you agree or not), with the knowledge that they deserve to be heard, is central to being a legislature. In any case, I would hope that all legislators who have issues with this bill would come forward before a vote is taken, so they can be addressed with full character.

Thank you.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Where's the "we can't have suggestions" crowd?

What do you mean?

Whenever a bill suggests something, a player comes out to denounce suggestions in bills.

Right. Bills should never phrase their provisions in the form of suggestions, because they are bills (i.e. their purpose is to become binding law). A resolution, on the other hand, is definitionally a suggestion, and so ought be phrased as such. That is the distinction.

[Leinad]

Me being sure that I am correct on this issue is no more "pretentious" then the idea that a redundant government department can bring us "peace in our time" or whatever.

And don't start lecturing me about peace. I'm more dovish than you are, so trying to win the argument with this anti-war shtick won't cut it.

[NeverAgain]

Me being sure that I am correct on this issue is no more "pretentious" then the idea that a redundant government department can bring us "peace in our time" or whatever.

And don't start lecturing me about peace. I'm more dovish than you are, so trying to win the argument with this anti-war shtick won't cut it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus. You are more than welcome to be sure of your idea, that's the whole point of debate. But, when you get to a point that you seem to be not only entirely discounting the ideas of those that are here, and making personal insults for those whom hold said ideas, that's when it crosses the line. We are here to discuss this issue and it's ramifications alone, and not make judgement calls on myself or other individuals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this is not a Department. It is a Commission. A Commission that will work with and through Executive Departments to ensure that peace programs and ideals are protected in our Government. As we've already established. There is no Department with the direct goal of peace, and even if attempted would hinder their work on their more direct matters. That's why this is so key. A centralization of peace programming is what this establishes. Of course there is overlap, and this Commission will help foster overlap between all parts of the Executive Branch in pursuit of Peace.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This kind of got to me here, I'll address it as it hit me. First off, the implication that I am putting on a facade so that I can what? seem more dovish? is so injurious to my own integrity, I do not know where to begin. I don't know where you are getting your facts on my political positions or stances, or the basics in what I believe of humanity, but you should probably find a new source. Secondly, I am not lecturing you about peace? I am attempting to explain this resolution, in the attempt that we can move beyond petty quibbles, and try to get all sides on board here. I, again, welcome your insight on improving how peace can be addressed, and would love to hear it. But coming to the table, as you have, with a lit match on the proposal before us, doesn't advance anything.

Thirdly. The idea that because you see yourself as more "dovish" (very VERY broad word, and has zero meaning when used in a comparison like this), and therefore reserve more authority on peacemaking and procedure is entirely absurd and frankly offensive to those that may be more "hawkish", but still have more experience than any of us will ever have on these issues in our lives.

Fourthly, going back a bit to what I mentioned earlier. Your framing of me taking days to make this bill, days to argue for it, and now weeks waiting, with baited breath, for a resolution on the matter, as being an anti-war shtick, is either a feeble attempt to once again, with unfounded principle, attack my integrity, or overestimate my desire to please those that view themselves with the broad stroke of "dovishness". Or both. Whatever it is, it needs to stop as we should be and must be focused on this bill in the context of the millions of families all over the world and at home, that will be affected by the decision of this body to organize our peacemaking process to protect their basic humanity.

I ask you to focus on their lives, and not petty attacks on me or my character.

[Representative simossad]

I think it's obvious that the debate on this is poisoned and that very few remarks on this are actually about the actual topic of this bill -- which is to create a special commissioner whose only duty is to report whether the atmosphere in both the world and our country is peaceful or not and to work together with the two major departments that are having an impact on this situation. That is how I understand the bill after the amendment.

It is great that we are having debates again in this house. It is great that we discuss on the issues that matter. But, as someone who supports the idea and proposed an extra amendment to clarify the doubts on this mentioned by the house majority, I have to remind both sides of the aisle that a debate which is becoming more and more personal keeps the other representatives away from this and makes an issue-based, rational decision impossible. I therefore ask both participants to soften their language and to come back to the core of this issue. We are here to have fun after all, but that does not alienate even our own house members from involving in their duties.

Coming back to the issue itself, I can understand the concerns being raised by my fellow representative, and I must admit that I do share parts of his judgement. I also do have the reservation that creating another office within the executive may lead to a situation in which competences are being claimed by multiple instances, and that there may be other cases in which the responsibility for other taskes may be negated by one department and the commissioner. The lines are very soft and unclear. That matches with the redundancy Leinard has mentioned.

But I do strongly believe that when these concerns compete with the current situtation, that we have growing tensions in both our country and in the world and that no authority in this county seems to commit oneself to the most important task a government has to fulfil, which is peacekeeping, then it is clear that I do not even spend a minute evaluating whether that is a good bill or not. I do not negate that some parts of this bill are redundant, as Leinard said, but the truth is that these tasks are not being fulfilled at the moment, and this is the reason why I support that office. I also understand the special commissioner of peace as a body exercising control over the peacekeeping activities of the executive, and that the peace report can be understood as a feedback for the executive on their activities on peace. As the governor has correctly stated: in a time in which our global peace is on stake, we have to take action and to remind ourselves that the world is not as safe as we thought it is.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So any further amendments to remove such wording?

I didn't see this because it was at the bottom of a long post and it blended in.


It was a response to previous Enduro posts about the existence of language structured in the form of a suggestion similar to that of the Naturalization Bill when it had lines like "a record of community service would help", which obviously rather vague and so forth. The now former Representative implied such was present in the bill, so I was asking if he planned or desired an amendment to remove such.

[NeverAgain]

So any further amendments to remove such wording?

I didn't see this because it was at the bottom of a long post and it blended in.


It was a response to previous Enduro posts about the existence of language structured in the form of a suggestion similar to that of the Naturalization Bill when it had lines like "a record of community service would help", which obviously rather vague and so forth. The now former Representative implied such was present in the bill, so I was asking if he planned or desired an amendment to remove such.

Gotcha, I was hoping there wasn't some wording nightmare that needed to be resolved. Anyways. Good stuff.

Are we ready to move to some voting, if no one has more questions? 🐴

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So are the members ready for a final vote?

[Representative simossad]

Yes, I motion for a final vote.

[Clyde1998]

I second the motion.
While I support the principle of the bill, I feel that this should really be the responsibility of the state department. Potentially, a department of peace could be a part of the state department. I'll probably abstain on this resolution when it comes to a vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The underlying legislation is now at final vote, Representatives, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Leinad]

While my vote on this is one that no storyteller could generate suspense from, I would still like to organize the reasons behind it, lest I be accused of "petty personal attacks" or "not caring about people's lives" or what have you:

Yes, "peace" is a very important goal. I and hopefully most of you would go as far as to argue that the most important goal, overall, of government is for it's citizens at home and abroad to live their lives as safely and freely as possible--the main part of that is attaining an absence of violent conflict (i.e. attaining peace). But every task that could go towards attaining peace is already in the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State or Secretary of Internal Affairs--two roles that clearly seem starving for activity even without this bill. And the matter of peace abroad should already be the #1 goal of the Secretary of State--I honestly find it disturbing (one might venture to say deeply so) that one would consider "keeping our reputation abroad secure" more important than that.

So, from both a foreign policy approach and a game policy approach, I can only vote:

NAY

and as attractive as it may be to vote for the (flawed) premise of the resolution, I respectfully urge my fellow members of this esteemed chamber to do the same.

[Clyde1998]

Abstain

[OneJ]

Aye

[Representative simossad]

Aye

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Abstain

See Clyde's thoughts.

[NeverAgain]

I will remind the Representatives that this has been amended to not be a "Department", but instead a separate commission on Peace. This Commission will work with all standing Departments, but is not one itself.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

I'm going to have to vote Nay for the reasons that Clyde and Leinad brought up. While it's certainly a noble goal I'm not sure how effective creating a commission for this purpose would be. It may well end up yet another inactive, unused government committee.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am extending the vote 24 hours because the present vote is is 2-2-2 with three not voting.