SENATE BILL: Workers' Liberation Amendment (Failed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:12:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: Workers' Liberation Amendment (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Workers' Liberation Amendment (Failed)  (Read 2312 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 05, 2012, 02:11:25 PM »
« edited: August 21, 2012, 08:19:18 PM by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Sponsor: Redalgo
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2012, 02:16:27 PM »

Redalgo, you have 24 hours to advocate for this measure.



I talked to my eye doctor about this vision issue and he suggested that I read Wealth of Nations again. I told him I will cope with the red as best I can. Wink
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2012, 02:40:52 PM »
« Edited: August 05, 2012, 02:44:16 PM by Senator Scott »

Looks like conscription is still going to be an issue, after all. Tongue

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm strongly against this section of the amendment.  Imposing an age requirement on an online forum game like this is, to me, unnecessary, and it would basically kick Jake, Pingvin and a couple others from the game.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2012, 03:24:33 PM »

There is also no verification as people can easily lie about their age in the profiles or just decline to state it. I didn't put mine in their for over a year after I came to the forum.


It would have also prevented Tmth, NiK and several other posters from joining had it been in effect at the time.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2012, 04:00:58 PM »

I joined at age 14, and was elected Lt. Governor of the Mideast at 14 1/2.  I will not support this legislation.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2012, 04:23:15 PM »

With the provision in question, my intent was not to suppress involvement or set up provisions that are not readily enforceable. Would my colleagues look favorably upon the following change? Are there any other concerns to iron out here before I actually propose an amendment?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The provisions are targeted toward the ends of ending forced labor in prisons, more thoroughly suppressing the risk of the draft than prior legislation, expand wartime labor rights and the body of both eligible voters and candidates, and implicitly inject humanistic themes into government's responsibilities in a handful of other areas of internal and external policy. Provisions (b), (h), and (k) are expendable if it will increase support for the legislation. All the other points are negotiable.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2012, 04:24:17 PM »

I'm still not too sure about that amendment.  There are certain restrictions on voting (activity requirements) that I think should remain in place, and an amendment like that would likely nullify them.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2012, 04:27:20 PM »

Do you have alternative participation requirements in mind? I am willing to compromise if you have a proposal softer than the standards currently in place.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2012, 04:28:55 PM »

Do you have alternative participation requirements in mind? I am willing to compromise if you have a proposal softer than the standards currently in place.

I think the requirements we already have on the books are ideal.  What do you dislike about those?
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2012, 04:53:54 PM »
« Edited: August 05, 2012, 04:56:39 PM by Redalgo »

My proposal is imperfectly worded given my neglect to examine previously-passed amendments. Nonetheless, the current language in Article VI of the constitution only protects citizens against discrimination along lines of nationality, race, religion, sex, sexuality, age or political affiliation. My use of less ambiguous language eliminates any residual risk for future sessions of the Senate to find a sly work-around in voter registration that would erode the original intent of this.

I need to amend into my amendment an... er... amendment of Article V, Section 2, Clause 1, which presently states: "A person may become a registered voter if they have attained fifty posts and have been registered at the forum for at least fourteen days. In registration, the person must state their name and State of fantasy residence; In addition, they may optionally state a political affiliation," which I'd like to see changed to seven days with the post count left where it is. My language for the amendment of Article VI would be adjusted to avoid creating any contradictions betwixt the provisions.

Part of my beef with the current requirements was that I reached fifty posts and then lost the initial burst of enthusiasm I initially had before the two week waiting period had expired, and then out of habit kept ignoring the game for awhile thereafter. If a poster is sufficiently active there isn't really any good reason to hold them back from being in the game. If people are still suspicious of them, it is not as if the more experienced members of the community will be forced to vote for them in elections. And if the person in question is a sock, the extra seven days is not going to make a difference in determining that if the fifty post count is left as an unchanged constant, ya?
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2012, 09:15:32 PM »

I voted aye on the compromise amendment hoping it would be the end of this issue.... I will not support a blanket ban of conscription
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2012, 11:04:45 PM »

Then I will strip out the related provisions and tilt at that windmill another day. To avoid making three or four amendments, however, I'm going to wait a bit longer to see what else people are objecting so I can get a sense of what needs to change.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2012, 08:22:13 PM »

Senator Scott, your response, please?

At this time what I am hearing from y'all is that the conscription provisions need to be removed and the suffrage adjusted from the current stipulations. Are there no other objections or concerns for any of you to voice before I amend the legislation?
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2012, 08:26:43 PM »

Okay.  If you want to fix the current registration requirements, then I think it would be better to do so with separate legislation.  Guaranteeing voting rights to every single person who tries to register just wouldn't be a good idea.  (I mean, say Oak Creek tried to register during an election.  Would it be a good idea to give him voting rights until he's banned?)
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2012, 01:29:54 AM »

Okay.  If you want to fix the current registration requirements, then I think it would be better to do so with separate legislation.  Guaranteeing voting rights to every single person who tries to register just wouldn't be a good idea.  (I mean, say Oak Creek tried to register during an election.  Would it be a good idea to give him voting rights until he's banned?)

More importantly than that it would create a lot of unnecessary work for Homely since he would have to clog up the voter rolls with a slew of soon-to-be-banned socks and trolls.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2012, 09:12:46 AM »
« Edited: August 07, 2012, 09:15:18 AM by Redalgo »

Alright then, for the time being I am proposing this amendment to the amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Are any of the the other stipulations controversial to y'all?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2012, 09:27:40 AM »

Are any of the the other stipulations controversial to y'all?

Does D mandate that such a system be provided or does it simply give the Senate to enact such a system if they so choose?

E seems to say that all actions must be of mutual benefit to all their peoples; it seems to be rather restrictive language. What is to be the effect of changing the language from the current language?

On G, does this mean that the government must provide such things effective immediately or is it sort of like the UDHR?

Of course, my issues with F are obvious.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2012, 11:01:55 AM »
« Edited: August 07, 2012, 11:19:37 AM by Redalgo »

Are any of the the other stipulations controversial to y'all?

Does D mandate that such a system be provided or does it simply give the Senate to enact such a system if they so choose?

E seems to say that all actions must be of mutual benefit to all their peoples; it seems to be rather restrictive language. What is to be the effect of changing the language from the current language?

On G, does this mean that the government must provide such things effective immediately or is it sort of like the UDHR?

Of course, my issues with F are obvious.

I am a fan of having constitutional flexibility in terms of political-economy. Provision (d) is already satisfied by certain social programs in Atlasia, though in the future I would like to see our system of social insurance broaden considerably, and (g) deliberately avoids using the word "guaranteed" so as to allow the People leeway in deciding whether their most basic necessities of life should be obtained within the mechanisms of a liberal (i.e. capitalist), social, or socialist democracy. These moves are not entirely symbolic however; I'm laying the groundwork for future legislation to be proposed without the threat of it being considered unconstitutional.

Given the current layout of the Senate, mind you, none of these stipulations pose a serious threat in practice to the established political-economic order. The leftist bloc in this Senate holds only 20% of its seats, and I fully expect Liberals will err toward the right on many reform-related issues, eh?

The provision (e) is relatively restrictive and is actually part of my triple-pronged thrust to enshrine humanist values in Atlasian policies abroad. Our country has a long history of nationalist agendas, imperialist aggression, and expansionism in international relations. Yes, in many instances ours is a country which has done a heroic, noble deed to the benefit of humanity, but one of my highest priorities is to nudge Atlasia toward a more consistent, stable doctrine of promoting human development around the world - something our great superpower is in a uniquely advantageous position to achieve. I think countries should be doing more to collaborate for mutual gains instead of competing in a cutthroat manner to "win" relative to the others at all costs, and by gaining in a mutual fashion I want to be sure it is the common folk who benefit - not the oftentimes detached, corrupt, and/or authoritarian elites of the countries we oft do business with for strategic reasons.

Then again, the language used is still ambiguous enough that it does not oblige you or any other official in our federal government to share my interpretation of it. Gradual steps are an important part of my overarching strategy though. Every little triumph counts for something.

If this amendment passes, I will no longer have a reason to pursue the Good Neighbor Resolution and will be inclined to scrap it rather than wasting time with it as a separate, comparatively problematic (approaching the matter via a procedural amendment) issue.

As for (f), you are the first person to actually say anything about it on the floor of the Senate. Given the extreme unlikelihood of my preferences prevailing on the matter, would you and your colleagues prefer the current flag be substituted and the anthem changed to something of our agreement in this thread pending further deliberation, or is any institutionalization of national symbols going to be a deal-breaker?
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2012, 01:58:00 PM »

Also add in that no individual can be forced or compelled to join a union as a condition of employment in any busisness.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2012, 06:09:41 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2012, 06:15:01 PM »

Redalgo- I am having difficulty seeing what in particular you are trying to address... I believe this is a fine amendment but we don't have slavery or involuntary servitude in this country anymore. If you believe something in particular classifies as such- an bill addressing that in particular or a criminal charge would be better ways to combat that. Can you simply explain what problems you aim to address why such language is necessary to be added?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2012, 06:22:40 PM »

He is going after wage slavery, and by extention, the capitalism system that encourages it.

I wouldn't call it Communist, but more like an agressive form of Socialism/Social Democracy.

But the flag choice miscontrues his intentions though in my opinion.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2012, 06:45:58 PM »

Redalgo- I am having difficulty seeing what in particular you are trying to address... I believe this is a fine amendment but we don't have slavery or involuntary servitude in this country anymore. If you believe something in particular classifies as such- an bill addressing that in particular or a criminal charge would be better ways to combat that. Can you simply explain what problems you aim to address why such language is necessary to be added?

He's deleting the "except as punishment for a crime" portion of the slavery article to make it banned in all circumstances.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2012, 10:18:13 PM »
« Edited: August 07, 2012, 10:28:50 PM by Redalgo »

Also add in that no individual can be forced or compelled to join a union as a condition of employment in any busisness. [sic]

The power of unions and organized labour, just like that of firms and richly moneyed persons, needs to be checked lest it pose a latent threat to the masses. It is in the interests of all the workers in the long run for each individual to have the prerogative to choose whether or not to join a union. Not being allowed the option one way or another runs against the grain of my ideals, some of which actually make me staunchly opposed to allowing interest groups (e.g. unions and firms) to significantly undermine our respective measures of personal autonomy.

If any of the Senators believes this is a good idea I will seriously consider adding it to another amendment once the current one is finished with. I supported that provision in my Economic Democratization Act, which was initially designed to have provisions interlocking with those of this legislation. It is not an item I would be opposed to bringing back, so long as it wouldn't be costing me more votes than it nets. There are conditions under which I would be far more idealistic - but in this specific situation I must tread carefully or risk walking away with nothing.


Can you simply explain what problems you aim to address why such language is necessary to be added?

I've discussed my goals in earlier posts but was perhaps not succinct and to-the-point. I want:

1. ...to abolish forced labor at prisons, feeling it is an excessive affront to individual liberties.
2. ...to grant labor organizing rights that also apply to gov't workers and in wartime.
3. ...to grant the state a role in ensuring public access to more forms of critical infrastructure.
4. ...to shift in the direction of a more comprehensive, social democratic welfare regime.
5. ...to shift in the direction of a foreign policy doctrine more infused with moral considerations.
6. ...to shift in the direction of a more multiculturalist, live-and-let-live doctrine on social issues.

Some of these have "progressive," forward looking aims while some of the others are looking back in time and are designed to ward off repetition of historic human rights abuses in Atlasia.

The stricken items were included with intentions to permanently do away with conscription, which I consider an authoritarian practice, and expand the suffrage of the vote to share the fruits of democratic participation with a broader base of people than in the past.

Although I believe no particular policy is ever truly necessary, per se, I think these changes would make ours a more perfect union.


He is going after wage slavery, and by extention, the capitalism system that encourages it.

I wouldn't call it Communist, but more like an agressive form of Socialism/Social Democracy.

But the flag choice miscontrues his intentions though in my opinion.

I actually wasn't going after wage slavery, though I would add that I do not believe the wage system is an actual form of slavery. My thinking is influenced by Marx but his ideas are tinkered with in concert with those of several other noteworthy contributors to certain fields of philosophy and the social sciences. My direct attack on the capitalist system was in my earlier, withdrawn legislation, whereas this amendment is entirely focused - through one method or another - on expanding the rights enjoyed by the individual.

The flag choice is presently ill-suited since, as mentioned a moment ago, this amendment was supposed to be the drop of the other shoe following my push for economic democratization. If that amendment had passed Atlasia would on its way to becoming a federation of socialist republics - obviously making the symbolic adjustments in question more appropriate. Without such an economic shift underway I am merely pushing for a more social democratic or welfare capitalistic Atlasia in the short-term. Incidentally, I'm a much better critic of what is wrong with society than I am a legislator adept in effective methods of righting those wrongs!

Anyway, hopefully this helps a bit. Smile
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2012, 10:40:49 PM »

As for (f), you are the first person to actually say anything about it on the floor of the Senate. Given the extreme unlikelihood of my preferences prevailing on the matter, would you and your colleagues prefer the current flag be substituted and the anthem changed to something of our agreement in this thread pending further deliberation, or is any institutionalization of national symbols going to be a deal-breaker?

Okay then, let's talk about symbols. I like the current flag, and as for an anthem, I propose This Is Our Country by John Mellencamp and We Shall Be Free by Garth Brooks. Take your pick, offer something else, etc.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.