Issue Advice - All Requests for Help on Decisions Here!

[aahz_capone]

ditto #3

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
Kass, could you post the actual issue? That link just brings up that... freaky... eye.

Odd. Lemmy gave me a link like that and it worked, gave me the Boo! flag and all. Oh well, my bad.

The increasingly militant Animal Liberation Front struck again last night, freeing dozens of chickens bound for delicious snack packs.

1. "These nuts have got to be stopped," demands concerned consumer Randy Winters. "They need to face the fact people want snack packs, no matter how many innocent chickens must be sacrificed. Besides, chickens would do the same to us if they had the chance."

2. "These Liberationists are highlighting an important issue," pleads Hack Chicago. "Too often, animals are put through needless cruelty, just to make their flesh taste a little more deliciously succulent. I'm sure we could ban the more horrific abuses without putting too much of a dent in our national obesity figures. Couldn't we?"

3. "Animals have feelings too!" yelled protestor Randy McAlpin, before being set upon by hungry passers-by. "Free the animals! Ban meat-eating!"

4. Economist Peggy Thiesen has an alternative. "You don't need to take away the people's right to choose. You just need to build the costs of animal suffering into the price. A tax on meat-eating, in proportion to the amount of cruelty involved, would do the trick. Plus think of the benefit for the national coffers! Of course, poor people wouldn't be able to afford meat, but that's just more incentive for them to get jobs."

Since I don't care about animal rights, I'm leaning towards #1, but #4 is enticing since my income tax rate is still a tad too high (same old 73 %).

[Drogue]

I have that too, and was thinking of either 2 or 4. I think 4 will put up your tax rate however, as it is an extra tax on meat. 4 is a good idea, but will a) stop poor people from having any meat, and b) let rich people torture animals if they wish. Therefore I think I'll go for 2

[Drogue]

I have one that I can't decide. Nazi sympathisers rally. Do I ban it or allow complete freedom of speech. I've already allowed the racist TV show, and foul mouthed kids, so I think I might want to temper it a bit. However, I do not want violence, which I think will be the result of a far right rally, and my society is based on tolerance, which the far right are not. This is my dilemma, should I allow the rally to go ahead, or not, or dismiss it?

[Kassiopeia]

Yes... should the intolerant be tolerated as well? Tricky. I think I would allow it. The reasons for any popularity of the extreme right are something that banning any rallies can't deal with. In other words, the rally is just the symptom of the real problem.

[Kassiopeia]

Hmm, #4 on the chicken question indeed wouldn't be the way of a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise. Either I go with the political climate, #2, or I go by my own opinions, #1. My stance on animal rights has pissed off several teenaged girls already.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Ah, animal-rights. I went with #2 (didn't like either extreme, and didn't want to.

Drogue: Got that same thing this morning. I went with 2, mainly so the Nazis kept their right to make asses of themselves.

[Drogue]

I no this is kinda cheating, but what's the result of allowing the Nazi's rally?

[Vlad Antlerkov]

How the hell would I know? I'd guess allowing it could result in a temporary decrease in civil rights, and banning it would result in a decrease in political rights...

[Kassiopeia]

I have decided to go with #1 in the chicken question, just for the heck of it. It might be that my political rights or civil liberties might drop from those, but I think restricting poultry industry would have even worse effects. And like I said, I don't give a **** about animals.

[Drogue]

Now we see evil Kass

I've chosen to allow the Nazi rally, because I'm still peved that not allowing corporate sponsorship of political parties put my political freedom down to good (I want people to make up their opwn minds, not have votes (or even politicians) bought by companies). Hopefully this will put it back up to very good or excellent, and not add too much to crime.

[Giovanni Wine]

I know it's already the second time I ask for help... but... I have no idea on what to do hee... I'm actually thinking of simply dismissing this issue, since I already made Organ Donations Compulsory.

Saluti


----------------------------------
Cash for Colons?

The Issue
Hospitals have requested that they be allowed to pay people for donating blood and other bodily organs, such as kidneys.

The Debate
"We remain critically short of blood plasma and various organs," says Wine One hospital administrator Pete Dodinas. "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 drinks in compensation. Unless it's a post-mortem donation, of course. In that case we'd pay the family."
[Accept]


"Great idea," says social commentator Beth Utopia. "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."
[Accept]
The Government Position
The government has yet to formalize a position on this issue.
----------------------

[GeneralTacticus]

I no this is kinda cheating, but what's the result of allowing the Nazi's rally?

It becomes illegal to make racist remarks in public. I banned it; I think other people's rights to go about their business without having these nutcases spreading hate overrides the Nazis' right to free speech.

I know it's already the second time I ask for help... but... I have no idea on what to do hee... I'm actually thinking of simply dismissing this issue, since I already made Organ Donations Compulsory.

Saluti


----------------------------------
Cash for Colons?

The Issue
Hospitals have requested that they be allowed to pay people for donating blood and other bodily organs, such as kidneys.

The Debate
"We remain critically short of blood plasma and various organs," says Wine One hospital administrator Pete Dodinas. "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 drinks in compensation. Unless it's a post-mortem donation, of course. In that case we'd pay the family."
[Accept]


"Great idea," says social commentator Beth Utopia. "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."
[Accept]
The Government Position
The government has yet to formalize a position on this issue.
----------------------

I'd go with #1. If your hospitals really are suffering from shortages of organs, they need as many as they can get.

[Drogue]

Id go with 1 too. They're needed, and if the poor don't want to sell, they don't. If its better than starving to death, then they might choose it. Besides, my hospitals are public, so everyonegets better treatment, and its cheaper than some ops that I'd have to sue instead, and more effective.

[Dis]

Holy cow. I can't believe I'm asking for advice. I'm trying to find the libertarian answer here. I'm not sure.

The Issue
Several major city streets were clogged with bicycles this morning, as the environmental group 'Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad' staged a protest. Several hundred riders ambled through downtown streets, blissfully ignoring the torrent of abuse hurled at them by thousands of motorists running late for work.

The Debate
"People are sick of dirty, smelly automobiles," said protest organizer Charles Spirit. "They're choking the city, the environment--our lives! Cars must be banned!"
[Accept]


"The only thing people are sick of is long-haired idiots riding their bicycles at two miles an hour on major thoroughfares," says committed motorist Billy-Bob Hamilton. "People shouldn't be able to protest like this. The government needs to crack down on them."
[Accept]


The Automotive Manufacturers Association, meanwhile, has called for government support. "It's clear that we need to boost the level of automobile support in this country. This protest this morning is a clear indication of... um... anyway, we need more government funds."
[Accept]


There is no clear libertarian answer. I'm against banning automobiles. Esp. since they are a major part of my enconomy and the repesent the freedom of my citizens. I'm against cracking down on the hippies/bicylists because that would go against their civil rights. And I'm against using goverment funds, I need to boost my economy some more.