-
January 12th, 2004, 11:04 PM
#11
Inactive Member
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...ation=chillage
Here's my nation. Come on over, live a little and be happy. Behold Chillage!
-
January 12th, 2004, 11:44 PM
#12
Inactive Member
Let's just say they're equal. :-p
-
January 13th, 2004, 12:39 AM
#13
HB Forum Owner
BTW, the first question I was asked was whether I should have compulsory voting or not. The choices were:
- Compulsory voting is just fair, it lives up to democracy's definition. Besides, if voting were optional, some sectors of society, like the young, wouldn't vote, and the power would be decided by the sectors who do. Finally, if a Government is decided by all, it'll be more legitimate.
- Why forcing it? We should respect people's will of not voting, which is just as valid. And besides, do we want to force those who don't give a damn for their country and therefore don't bother with voting? If they do vote, they'll vote crap.
- Come to think of it... why do we need voting anyways?
Although I was seriously tempted by the third option, I went with the second one. I run a democracy and people is allowed to vote for any party <font size="1">(as long as I like it)</font> ^_^ .
<font color="#101010" size="1">[ January 12, 2004 08:40 PM: Message edited by: -Wiseman- ]</font>
-
January 13th, 2004, 10:44 AM
#14
HB Forum Owner
Today's issue:
Hospitals have requested that they be allowed to pay people for donating blood and other bodily organs, such as kidneys.
The Debate
1. "We remain critically short of blood plasma and various organs," says Forceana One hospital administrator Bianca Licorish. "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 sakuras in compensation. Unless it's a post-mortem donation, of course. In that case we'd pay the family."
2. "Great idea," says social commentator Charles McAlpin. "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."
I chose 1. You have to compensate one who helps saving lives. Don't I pay the Forceana Police? As for the second option, well, I feel anybody should be free to sell them. Besides, it's not that donating your organs is easy as 1-2-3. I wouldn't donate anything that doesn't come out by itself for a million dollars, I can't stand surgery, needles, and everything doctors want to use on you. And I don't think the rich only will benefit from this: even the most of the poor class will be able to get what they want, because you always have some money, and what's better than spending it on health?
-
January 13th, 2004, 10:20 PM
#15
Inactive Member
I accepted number one also.
-
January 13th, 2004, 11:18 PM
#16
Inactive Member
"The Issue
A well-heeled lobby group is pushing for the elimination of regulations that prevent corporations from donating money to political parties.
The Debate
"This is supposed to be a democratic country," Uranium Mining industry spokesperson Colin Hendrikson says. "Yet these archaic laws say I can't donate money to support a political party. They put ceilings on the amount any party can spend on advertising. It's time to stop treating voters like children, and trust them to make up their own minds. Free the ballot box!"
"You say political freedom, I hear vote-buying," says popular anarchist Al McGuffin. "If these fat cats get their way, politicians will buy their own seat in Congress. And let's face it, a slick advertising campaign can convince a lot of apathetic voters. We need to tighten the laws, not repeal them. Money should have no place in politics!"
"Frankly, I don't see why we need to have elections at all," says your brother, Billy-Bob Love, over a late-night malt whiskey. "You always seem to know what's best. Why not scrap the whole political system? It would make things so much simpler."'
Hmmm...this one's a toughie. =/
-
January 13th, 2004, 11:43 PM
#17
HB Forum Owner
Yup... By default, I wouldn't let that happen, because it's corruption-prone, and besides, I don't want too much money to be spent on propaganda, it's useless, I think it's best people who don't know what to vote don't vote, instead of going for the nicest TV ad. The problem is, I wouldn't really want to side with anarchists and similar sectors, unless I wanted trouble. I don't want to disturb large companies either, because that will mean kicking economy, and economy is very important for development and, ultimately, happiness. If I mess with large companies, they'll suffer, lose money, shrink, fire people, and require less jobs, etc., all of this ends up having poorer and unhappier people. And I'm still tempted by that third option.....
BTW, Sizer, what's your country?
<font color="#101010" size="1">[ January 13, 2004 07:46 PM: Message edited by: -Wiseman- ]</font>
-
January 13th, 2004, 11:53 PM
#18
Inactive Member
Wolfshenge
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...ion=wolfshenge
Hmmm...yer right >_< I don't want money corrupting my government, yet I don't like the idea of siding with an anarchist. I'm tempted by the second one though.
-
January 14th, 2004, 12:42 AM
#19
Inactive Member
The Issue
It's time for the government to hire a new religious advisor. Your people have narrowed down the candidates to:
The Debate
1. Catholic Archbishop Buffy Jong-Il: boasts an excellent track record, having rapidly increased church attendances in his constituencies through the "Reaching God Through Guilt" program. Seen as a solid choice.
2. New Age thinker Beth Longfellow: a left-field candidate with some radical ideas. "For me, it's not about the name of your religion. It's about discovering your spirituality in whatever guise that takes. Some people call that a cult: I call it taking spirituality to the people."
3. Finally, there's Charles Dodinas. "If I am awarded the appointment, I will immediately resign," the ex-schoolteacher has declared. "Because, frankly, God is a big load of hokey. I'll be doing everyone a favor by just shutting up about it."
_______________
I chose 3, mainly because if this guy shuts up about it all the better.
-
January 14th, 2004, 01:12 AM
#20
HB Forum Owner
LOL, 3!
Wait, I'd actually answer:
"Myself wasting a minute to hear all this is out of the religion budget already, choose nobody, peace out. Wait, choose 3, cool dude, invite him to pizza and Coca-Cola [national products], I'll pay it."
<font color="#101010" size="1">[ January 13, 2004 09:18 PM: Message edited by: -Wiseman- ]</font>
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks