Proposed Issue on Overpopulation

[Panageadom]

I reasonably often submit issues, but I've never got any in.
So, it seems wise to let the forums tell me what I'm doing wrong.
The following issue hasn't been suggested yet, and I'd like your advice on it.

Name: In @@NAME@@, it's a Squeeze

Description: As your nation's population skyrockets, overcrowding is an increasing problem.

Validity: Only valid for nations with a population over a billion.

[option] "More people need more land. Where do we get land? Simple. We take it from someone else," says top general @@RANDOMNAME@@, "I say we solve this problem by invading our neighbours, right now. Worst case scenario: we free up some space with a couple of thousand dead soldiers."
[effect] @@NAME@@ invades its neighbour.
[stats] Military expenditure rises, tax rises 2%.

[option] "No, no, no!" says top hippy, @@RANDOMNAME@@, "I agree we need more land, but the way to do it is to buy some land from our neighbours. Negotiation, though slow and expensive, is always the way forwards!"
[effect] @@NAME@@ enters into negotiations for buying land off its neighbours.
[stats] Tax rises by 5%.

[option] "There's a simple answer to all this that doesn't involve radical policy shift," says professional mad scientist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Firstly, we increase healthcare spending. Then, as would be logical, we give a new medical body power to cull the infected, criminals and the mentally ill! See, all the dangers of overpopulation solved!"
[effect] The government turns over both loads of money and the power to kill those they don't like to the medical authorities.
[stats] Health rises as a government priority, taxes rise by 4%, civil rights drop significantly.

[option] "I hate to point out what a stupid idea that last one was, but it is," says civil architect, "All you need to do is commission a series of new 100 story tall skyscrapers to hold the population. And, of course, institute laws to putting 5 people to a room, so they don't take up space while we convert their homes."
[effect] The government commissions a series of huge skyscrapers to provide homes for the population.
[stats] Taxes rise 3%, civil rights decrease, infrastructure rises as a government priority.

[option] "This seems, to me, to be a ridiculous issue to be considering," says right-wing economist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, "We can just rely on market pressures to rearrange the population and housing prices to an acceptable level. If anything, we should simplify bureaucracy so that property transfer is easier to drive down prices."
[effect] The government does nothing, bar relax restrictions on housing.
[stats] Economic freedoms rise slightly, government size decreases slightly.



Your thoughts, please?

[Bears Armed]

Interesting.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I reasonably often submit issues, but I've never got any in.
So, it seems wise to let the forums tell me what I'm doing wrong.
The following issue hasn't been suggested yet, and I'd like your advice on it.

Name: In @@NAME@@, it's a Squeeze <-- "It's a Squeeze in @@NAME@@; at least, this is what I would change it to, if it ended up on my editing table.

Description: As your nation's population skyrockets, overcrowding is an increasing problem. <-- So? What are people doing about it? How did this issue get to your desk?

Validity: Only valid for nations with a population over a billion.

[option] "More people need more land. Where do we get land? Simple. We take it from someone else," says top general @@RANDOMNAME@@, "I say we solve this problem by invading our neighbours, right now. Worst case scenario: we free up some space with a couple of thousand dead soldiers." <-- Needs to be polished. Also, why not annex?
[effect] @@NAME@@ invades its neighbour. <-- Why?
[stats] Military expenditure rises, tax rises 2%. <-- To date, I haven't seen any issues that mention specific tax increases. Then again, I haven't seen many issues... but, take from that what you will.

[option] "No, no, no!" says top hippy, @@RANDOMNAME@@, "I agree we need more land, but the way to do it is to buy some land from our neighbours. Negotiation, though slow and expensive, is always the way forwards!" <-- Again, needs to be polished.
[effect] @@NAME@@ enters into negotiations for buying land off its neighbours. <-- "off of".
[stats] Tax rises by 5%. <-- Again.

[option] "There's a simple answer to all this that doesn't involve radical policy shift," says professional mad scientist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Firstly, we increase healthcare spending. Then, as would be logical, we give a new medical body power to cull the infected, criminals and the mentally ill! See, all the dangers of overpopulation solved!" <-- Needs to be polished. Also a bit outlandish, but I suppose that's the point. I would probably change it around to say mandatory execution of prisoners, or something like that.
[effect] The government turns over both loads of money and the power to kill those they don't like to the medical authorities.
[stats] Health rises as a government priority, taxes rise by 4%, civil rights drop significantly. <-- Again with the tax.

[option] "I hate to point out what a stupid idea that last one was, but it is," says civil architect, "All you need to do is commission a series of new 100 story tall skyscrapers to hold the population. And, of course, institute laws to putting 5 people to a room, so they don't take up space while we convert their homes." <-- Polish.
[effect] The government commissions a series of huge skyscrapers to provide homes for the population.
[stats] Taxes rise 3%, civil rights decrease, infrastructure rises as a government priority. <-- Again. And decreasing civil rights in a bit much. I would suggest pollution rises, or something similar.

[option] "This seems, to me, to be a ridiculous issue to be considering," says right-wing economist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, "We can just rely on market pressures to rearrange the population and housing prices to an acceptable level. If anything, we should simplify bureaucracy so that property transfer is easier to drive down prices." <-- Unrelated to the issue at hand? "We have overcrowding." "Make it easier to buy a home?"
[effect] The government does nothing, bar relax restrictions on housing. <-- Effect lines must be a single clause (no commas).
[stats] Economic freedoms rise slightly, government size decreases slightly.

Overall, do not capitalize the first letter on effect lines, and get rid of the full-stops (periods).

[Panageadom]

Ok, thanks. Is that just some style thing?

[Gynocracy]

If this proposal gets to the point of being put forward as a formal issue, Gynocracy would vote for the General's suggestion.

[Panageadom]

That's encouraging, but sadly not useful.

[Sirocco]

We've already got an issue on overcrowding don't we?

[Ballotonia]

We've already got an issue on overcrowding don't we?

#68: Ornery Overcrowding Problem [Frigben; ed:Reploid Productions]
This is about a housing crisis, due to booming population growth.

#96: Water Supply Problems Becoming a Major Drain [Calvin n Hobbes; ed:Reploid Productions]
This is about water problems, due to booming population growth.

Ofcourse, this puts to question regarding the proposed issue... what's the actual problem it addresses? It simply regards 'overcrowding' a problem? In what way is that a problem? Is it traffic jams? Food shortages? Too many people with the same name causing confusion all over?

Ballotonia

[Todd McCloud]

We've already got an issue on overcrowding don't we?

I personally do not mind that. There is more than one way to skin a cat, or issue, in this case.

[Panageadom]

V1.1

Name: In @@NAME@@, it's a Squeeze

Description: As your nation's population skyrockets, overcrowding is an increasing problem: shantytowns and Hoovervilles are springing up around the country, while in the cities, a health commission has reported in the last week three collapses of hastily built apartment blocks along with one case of another case of a whole apartment block being quarantined due to a virus spreading rapidly between the four hundred-odd borders. Government action has been called for by various protest groups.

Validity: Only valid for nations with a population over a billion.

[option] "More people need more land. Where do we get land? Simple. We take it from someone else," says top general @@RANDOMNAME@@, "We've never liked our neighbours, and now we have an excuse to invade: a perfect situation, bar the soldiers that'll end up dead in the invasion. But, of course, they'll free up space back home.
[effect] @@NAME@@ invades its neighbour to claim more land
[stats] Military expenditure rises, taxes rise slightly.

[option] "No, no, no!" says top hippy, @@RANDOMNAME@@, "I agree we need more land, but the way to do it is to buy some land from our neighbours - those that our pugnacious general other there would invade. Negotiation, though slow and expensive, is always the way forwards!"
[effect] @@NAME@@ enters into negotiations for buying land off of its neighbours
[stats] Taxes rise

[option] "There's a simple answer to all this that doesn't involve radical policy shift," says professional mad scientist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Firstly, we increase healthcare spending. Then, as would be logical, we give a new medical body power to cull the infected, criminals and the mentally ill! See? All the dangers of overpopulation solved!"
[effect] the government turns over both oodles of money and the power to kill those they don't like to the medical authorities
[stats] Health rises as a government priority, taxes rise, civil rights drop significantly.

[option] "No, no, no. We don't need to be running to such disreputable extremes," says a civil architect, "What we need to do is to usher the country into a new age of high-rise architechtural excellence, so that people will have enough space to live in. All nicely funded for by a government program funded for by a tax hike on the rich, but they have homes anyway."
[effect] the government commissions a series of huge skyscrapers to provide homes for the population.
[stats] Taxes rise 3, taxes become higher for the rich, infrastructure rises as a government priority.

[option] "The issue we are considering is the wrong one. The issue at hand is more that the population is unable to buy the right kind of home in our metropolised society than anything else," says economist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, "All that needs to be done is to allow people more freedom to buy that type of housing, and for property owners to build them. I say we lessen building restrictions, and let market pressure find a new, stable position for the type of housing available, its price and the number of people alive to buy it."
[effect] the government reduces housing restrictions to let the house buyer buy whatever thirty-story monstrosity he feels suits him
[stats] Economic freedoms rise slightly, government size decreases slightly

Many thanks to Glen Rhodes for widescale editing. (Although I ignored some bits...)

Your thoughts now, gentlemen?

[Maroza]

I just have one problem with number 3. I'd say taxes go up not taxes go up for the rich.