Northeast Assembly Thread

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Had this bill passed and been sent to me, I wouild have vetoed it. 

Not that I do not support the intent of the bill, I do, however, I do agree with the statements against this bill.  The opposition to this bill is reasoned and logical.

I am sure that we all support our school age children becoming computer literate, however, there are better ways of achieving this.  Computer labs at school, as has been mentioned, are the logical approach.  As has been noted, laptops for all students will be far too costly, and the misuse and theft of these laptops is a very real possibility.

This bill should be rewritten in order to achieve the intent of the bill but without the tremendous cost this bill would put on the taxpayers.   

I've already addressed this.  If a student loses his or her laptop, they would be asked to pay for it in accordance with an agreement that a guardian would have signed.  This would teach personal responsibility as well as computer literacy.  After the student finishes high school, the laptop is returned and reused.  And this wouldn't have necessarily cost the taxpayers more if the funding comes from 1.5% of the education budget, since the region would have been required to save- not spend- the money for the program.  Ideally, it could be offset by cuts.  Many schools already have computer labs, and there would have been less of a need for them if a laptop program was in place.  Computer labs are great, but access is very limited, as labs do not contain enough computers for every student.

This is certainly an issue for another day, however, since the current bill is dead.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'm certainly willing to introduce a bill to address technology in schools.  Of course, I would offer Government funds to schools who would create student accessible terminals.  If anyone wants to work out the amount of funds, ect with me, all you need to do is message me

Mr. Speaker, we already have terminals in schools.  Computer labs have been around for a while.  Are you referring to poorer schools that might not have them?  I might be getting a bit confused.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I wrote this bill in response to the recent "secessionist movements" happening in our country.  I believe this policy will further strengthen and unify the states of the region and signify our loyalty to Atlasia.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Why shouldn't people be allowed self-determination?

Self-determination?  I don't know why you're bringing that up.  The definition of self-determination is "the power or ability to make a decision for oneself without influence from outside".  Atlasia's government shouldn't be considered "outside", as this region is part of the Republic of Atlasia.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Say every single person in the state of Massachusetts wants to secede.  Why shouldn't they be allowed to?  Should the government go into Massachusetts and start killing people until they give then?  If yes, why would that be right?

This bill (should be a resolution) is essentially enshrining the doctrine of "might makes right."

Because Massachusetts is a part of the region.  States should not be allowed to simply wander off as they please, because that ruins the point of having government at all.  What's next?  Are counties going to declare independence?  Should towns with ten people start running off because every single person wants to?  That will just lead to anarchy.  And yes, if a state wishes to commit treason, it may, but it should be prepared to take the consequences that come with that.  That's been happening for thousands of years.  We should certainly not give diplomatic recognition to a state that rebels against its government, especially since neither the government of this region- or this Republic- has done anything in violation of the social contract.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

So you are saying that when Atlasia declared independence from Britlasia, the Britlasians would be justified in killing the entire population of Atlasia in order to prevent it from becoming independent.

Good to know we're taking such a strong stance against extremism!

When did I say that?  I'm saying that when a nation decides to become independent, it has to accept consequences that come with it.  This is actually quite consistent with the saying, "freedom isn't free".  If a government becomes corrupt and oppresses, its people have the moral right to establish a new one.  However, neither the regional or federal governments in Atlasia are doing that, and the current secessionist movements are happening now because of two things: political disagreements, and bored people acting out.

I must say, you are acting quite unstatesmanlike.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I agree with wormyguy.

If a population within some sort of political entity wish to secede, there should be nothing to stop such a thing, as long as it is through due process.  Otherwise would be nothing short of tyranny in the highest form.

It's not tyranny at all, as long as the government is not oppressive and goes by the social contract.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

The majority don't refuse to do so.  If they want to refuse to vote, that is their right.  The majority in REALITY however, do pay taxes, and do send their children to school.  Government, though it can very often be a hindrance to personal liberty, is also necessary to preserve it.  To say otherwise, in my opinion, is a fallacy.  Now, if a state wishes to seek division through legislative means, fine.  Perhaps we, or I, should make it clear that my argument regards those who should wish to revolt, with arms, in a manner that is prohibited already by the Regions and Atlasia's constitution. 

It does say that?  I checked both constitutions and I couldn't find it.  This bill sets a policy for the Northeast government to keep its union together and not diplomatically recognize states that attempt to secede, so it's a tad different.  A law that simply says "don't rebel" isn't really effective, because states that declare independence wouldn't abide by our laws.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.

He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.

He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).

Then they would be in violation of the law, obviously.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Aye.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.

He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).

Then they would be in violation of the law, obviously.

And what would you then do about it?

...Uh, well, like most lawbreakers, they would then be charged for it, I would assume.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

Honestly, I was thinking along the lines of wormyguy--what if a state's people really want to secede?

Here are three good reasons.

1. As stated before, there's simply no reason for a state to secede because none of the governments of Atlasia are depriving anyone of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2. What if someone ran for public office in one of the regions and, say, lost?  If they declare independence for their state, that person could just crown themselves king and basically ruin the point of the game.  This region should discourage that type of behavior by not diplomatically recognizing the independent state.
3. A divided house fails.  If the region dissolves, it loses citizens and thus becomes weaker.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'll be honest.  I think it's pretty childish that now we're proposing bills to repeal legislation that was already passed in the same session.  Fortunately, I don't believe this resolution has very good chances of passing, and if it does, I expect that this will be vetoed, as the governor signed the Scott Doctrine soon after it was passed.

I strongly oppose this measure.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

A strong, and resounding, nay.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Nay

I'm sorry, but you've been expelled.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I will vote aye.  I had a few ideas for amendments before this came up, but I have since changed my mind.  Unless I change my mind before the vote comes up, I think this Constitution is fine.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Aye.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Nay

I disagree with the inclusion of "morals" as a legitimate reason for impeachment of the governor.

Remember that you are allowed to amend things...

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

*applauds*

Can senators introduce legislation?  Napoleon just did.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I have no issues with this bill or amendments to offer and will be voting aye.