NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Royalsoldiers]

Still we should not limit the freedom of information of our people regardless of if it is controversial or not.

The bill is not limiting anyone's freedom in the least by taking these books of the government's shelves. That's like saying that not giving someone a 1,000 dollar paycheck every week is limiting their freedom. If people really wish to read Ayn Rand then they should get it from the private sector, they shouldn't be putting the cost of their reading interest onto the hardworking taxpayers.

Can I ask why Rand's books are being taken off the shelves?

[Arkolon]

The bill is not limiting anyone's freedom in the least by taking these books of the government's shelves. That's like saying that not giving someone a 1,000 dollar paycheck every week is limiting their freedom. If people really wish to read Ayn Rand then they should get it from the private sector, they shouldn't be putting the cost of their reading interest onto the hardworking taxpayers.

Can I ask why Rand's books are being taken off the shelves?

Psst, I'm 99% sure it isn't serious.

[Vedastia]

Any legislation prohibiting books nationwide from our public libraries is an affront to freedom everywhere.

[New Werpland]

The bill is not limiting anyone's freedom in the least by taking these books of the government's shelves. That's like saying that not giving someone a 1,000 dollar paycheck every week is limiting their freedom. If people really wish to read Ayn Rand then they should get it from the private sector, they shouldn't be putting the cost of their reading interest onto the hardworking taxpayers.

Can I ask why Rand's books are being taken off the shelves?

I sincerely think that Ayn would not wish her books to be held by a large state, at the disposal to anyone at no cost at all. That and the fact that her work is not of the most intellectual merit.

[Royalsoldiers]

Can I ask why Rand's books are being taken off the shelves?

Psst, I'm 99% sure it isn't serious.

I don't agree with objectivism but I do not see why it would be banned.

[New Zepuha]

Greater Literature Act

---

Author: New Werpland [CP]
Sponsors:
To Promote greater intelligence amongst Calaverde Citizens via Public Libraries

---

Article I: Restricted books
Books and Novels listed below should not be included on the shelves of any Public Library within the borders of Calaverde
1. Any novel or book written by writer Ayn Rand
2. Fifty Shades of Gray
3. Mein Kampf

Farenheight 451 anyone? This is an affront to freedom, liberty, and intellectualism everywhere. I condemn this act with the utmost hatred.

[New Werpland]

Any legislation prohibiting books nationwide from our public libraries is an affront to freedom everywhere.

I've implied before that if you subscribe to that belief you must also affirm the need for a large welfare state, to be short you are using Liberal Egalitarian logic not Classical Liberal logic, to reach your conclusion that the bill infringes upon freedom.

[Arkolon]

Psst, I'm 99% sure it isn't serious.

I don't agree with objectivism but I do not see why it would be banned.

The bill, not the book. The bill isn't serious.

[New Werpland]

Greater Literature Act

---

Author: New Werpland [CP]
Sponsors:
To Promote greater intelligence amongst Calaverde Citizens via Public Libraries

---

Article I: Restricted books
Books and Novels listed below should not be included on the shelves of any Public Library within the borders of Calaverde
1. Any novel or book written by writer Ayn Rand
2. Fifty Shades of Gray
3. Mein Kampf

Farenheight 451 anyone? This is an affront to freedom, liberty, and intellectualism everywhere. I condemn this act with the utmost hatred.

Would you like Fahrenheight 451 alone restricted, or all of Ray Bradbury?

[Royalsoldiers]

I don't agree with objectivism but I do not see why it would be banned.

The bill, not the book. The bill isn't serious.

That's why I thought at first too but I'm getting some mixed signals.

[Collatis]

The bill, not the book. The bill isn't serious.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it is a joke. Though I certainly wouldn't mind limiting the amount of Ayn Rand books here and there...

[New Werpland]

The bill, not the book. The bill isn't serious.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it is a joke. Though I.certainly wouldn't mind limiting the amount of Ayn Rand bools here and there...

Ayn Rand

Why not pass it? I don't think it's too unreasonable.

[Collatis]

Why not pass it? I don't think it's too unreasonable.

I can see both sides of the argument. But seriously, all those who dislike Ayn Rand should watch this: Ayn Rand

[Royalsoldiers]

I do not agree with objectivism but I do not see why it is banned on the shelves. Sure Ayn Rand is a complete jerk. Plus objectivism has a few decent political thoughts to it. You have the right to your own pursuit of happiness unless you impede on another's.

[Intermountain States]

I would support the bill if we also throw in John Meynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, and basically every economist and philosophers in existence.

[New Werpland]

I would support the bill if we also throw in John Meynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, and basically every economist and philosophers in existence.

no

[Intermountain States]

I would support the bill if we also throw in John Meynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, and basically every economist and philosophers in existence.

no

And why not?

[Geilinor]

Any legislation prohibiting books nationwide from our public libraries is an affront to freedom everywhere.

I've implied before that if you subscribe to that belief you must also affirm the need for a large welfare state, to be short you are using Liberal Egalitarian logic not Classical Liberal logic, to reach your conclusion that the bill infringes upon freedom.

What does that even mean? No liberal logic justifies this.

[New Werpland]

I've implied before that if you subscribe to that belief you must also affirm the need for a large welfare state, to be short you are using Liberal Egalitarian logic not Classical Liberal logic, to reach your conclusion that the bill infringes upon freedom.

What does that even mean? No liberal logic justifies this.

I was referring to Vedastia's claim "Any legislation prohibiting books nationwide from our public libraries is an affront to freedom everywhere." as being Liberal Egalitarian.

[Geilinor]

What does that even mean? No liberal logic justifies this.

I was referring to Vedastia's claim "Any legislation prohibiting books nationwide from our public libraries is an affront to freedom everywhere." as being Liberal Egalitarian.

And what the hell is "liberal egalitarianism"?

[Geilinor]

Now that the confusion over taxes has cleared up and to distract from book-banning bills:

Retirement Savings Act

---

Authors: Geneviève Duflot [LDP], Sebastian Luc Morales [DL]
Sponsors: Michael Giuliani [DL]

---

Preamble:

To establish a universal retirement savings system in order to prevent poverty among the elderly and manage the issue of an aging population.

Article I: Definitions

1.) "Employer" shall be defined as "A person or entity who is contractually bound to a worker - the employee - to give that worker money as a salary or wages, in exchange for ongoing work and for which the employer directs the work and exercises fundamental control over the work".

Article II: Retirement Savings Plans

1.) A government-managed National Retirement Savings Plan shall be established, which shall be managed by a board of directors appointed by the Minister of Finance.
2.) Private savings plans may be established and information regarding fees charged, expected annual returns, composition of investments, and risk must be released to the public.
3.) Employees may choose the plan of their choice and shall have the option to transfer funds once annually.
4.) The self-employed who would otherwise not qualify shall have the option to join a plan.

Article III: Employer Contributions

1.) Employers shall contribute 5% of their employees' wages to their retirement savings plan in the first year.
b.) The contribution rate shall increase by 1% per year until it reaches 10%.
2.) The first $3,500 of employer contributions shall be tax-free.

Article IV: Government Contributions

1.) The government of Calaverde will contribute $1 for every $2 contributed by the employer, up to the first $1000.

Article V: Personal Contributions

1.) Members of savings plans shall be free to contribute to their retirement fund at any time.
2.) The first $1,500 of personal contributions shall be tax-free.

Article VI: Withdrawal of Funds

1.) Members of savings plans may withdraw up to $30,000 from their fund for a down payment on their first home or for medical costs.
2.) Plan holders shall be able to fully access their funds after the age of 60.

[The Nihilistic view]

It's not been cleared up at all..........

[Geilinor]

This is so far based on what ministries have discussed. (Basically 23% of GDP will cover energy/justice/education/interior/health/welfare/defence.) These make up the bulk of total spend I'd imagine, but we still need to appropriate for the other ministries which haven't been discussed yet in detail.

If that's the bulk of it, I still can't imagine spending reaching too far above 30%. It's not a lot, and the tax system should reflect that.

It looks like it made sense to Ark.

[Royalsoldiers]

If that's the bulk of it, I still can't imagine spending reaching too far above 30%. It's not a lot, and the tax system should reflect that.

It looks like it made sense to Ark.

Regardless of the government spending part, it will most likely destroy the work force. It will make hiring an employee extreme expensive and many small businesses can't afford such a thing.

[The Nihilistic view]

You're still trying to pass bills that levy taxes on top of the actual budget plans. The issue has not been dealt with at all.