Should a government be able to decide how private land is used within a country? It seems when it comes to individual propety rights versus those of the government, the one thing Hexatopians, a Grade 10 Civics class of Ms. Cheryl Payne-Stevens at The Woodlands School in Mississauga, ON, can agree upon is the passion they feel for their country.   Citizen Afshan began the discussion through his post:

“1) Health, education and food hexes must be owned by the government. If the government does not own these hexes, the owners must sell them to the government for 1/3 of what they paid.

2) If anyone wants to build up their hexes they have to get permission from the government.

3) Taxes will be as follows (this is like an income tax): 0-3000 no tax
3001-5000 10%
5001+ 15%

4) The government can propose bills at any time.

^
Citizens of Hexetopia, is this really how we want our country run!? Will we stand for THIS?! What is this!? Isn’t the government supposed to have our best interests at heart (<.< ) not deceit us and take away our hexes/money….

What are your thoughts on the bills!? |:
Have your voice heard before its too late!”

MP Jodi-Ann tried to help Citizen Afshan see the positive side of the bills,

“like afshan its just the food and education hex, BE HAPPY its not all hexes, so i do not know what is the problem. Plus taxes are fine also BE HAPPY we are not making taxes reallly high. the rest are ok”

Afshan’s response was short but clear,

“Listen Jodi-Ann! >:(
The Hexatopians are NOT happy. We will NOT be happy. We CAN not be happy. We can’t stand for this injustice.
You’re taking away the hexes for which citizens paid thousands of dollars, they paid a great deal of money and you’re just going to step in and YANK it AWAY from them for one THIRD of the original price?!
How is it fair?! We CAN make a change and i promise you: we WILL… or we’ll die trying.”

MP Jodi-Ann showed what she truly thought of her constituents in her respons,

“Have fun trying afshan, have fun with that, like the citizens are still gonna make something off of this in the long run anyway sooo shhhhh”

The next few posts are arguments between Jodi-Ann and Afshan.   Afshan sides with the individual: the government should have bought the hexes in the beginning rather then buying them for one third of what they are worth.  Jodi-Ann argues that the government could not afford the hexes so they have to force people to sell them for below market value and relies on the idea of individualism in their country. 

Having read this argument, Citizen Richard responds with his own ideas based on the Canadian government,

“I think there is some confusion as to what happens to the taxes and money collected by the government. ALL OF THE MONEY GOES BACK THROUGH BENEFITS TO CITIZENS- the government simply re-distributes wealth from the rich to the poor, so that there is more equality.

What is fair? Is fair allowing several businesspeople collecting the money of everybody, because they had more money in the auction so they were able to purchase better hexes? No. Fair is everybody receiving the same resources. The members of government must pay taxes just as citizens do, and they do not get additional benefits. They do not spend government money on themselves, they spend money on the citizens.

As to why the government did not purchase hexes in the auction, this has already been explained. The government did not start off with enough money to buy all the hexes it thought were needed to equitably run the country, so it bought what it could- the power plant. Then, after the earnings doubling, it used all its money to re-buy hexes.

The country was NOT ‘ripped off’ from the government re-buying hexes. Since the program automatically increases money in the country to 100 000 after the auction, if nobody had spent any money and the government had acquired the hexes after, then people would still have the same amount of money they started out with. Therefore, money in the country is still at 100 000, although some people have more money and some have hexes.

The government realizes that there are imbalances in the money people own, and that is why taxes were supposed to be higher for those with higher incomes- to help balance out the situation. The same concept is in place in Canada and the US- Canadian income tax rates for anybody earning over 100 00 a year (which is upper middle class) is taxed over 40% of their base income. This is a LOT more than what the government proposed- a real government would have laughed at the meager 15% that was proposed for rich citizens. “

Afshan was able to end with the last word, however,

“But we won’t give up. This is OUR country. That half-of-the government WILL listen to us.
Stay strong Hexatopian.”

It is clear that there is miscommunication between those in the government who think they are doing what is best for Hexatopians and citizens who feel they are not getting a fair shake.  Will the government be able to make their case, or will citizens like Afshan win out? 

                                          Poverty effects every country in the world.  Some countries deal with poverty more than others, but it is a problem in some form or another everywhere, the question becomes is it inevitable?  The CM country Chapan, otherwise known as the students from Shawnee Mission North High School in Overland Park, Kansas, took on this question as a class and came up with some answers based on experience within the Civic Mirror.  The citizens of Chapan began with a question posed by Instructor Kayte Cormack,

 ”We’ve talked a lot recently about poverty and impoverished nations and people. Are economic imbalances that occur between citizens something people just have to accept, or could and should they be minimized? “

Citizen Michael began by discussing not only experience, but his understanding of one political philosophy he knew well,

“Both definitely. We should try to minimize it and maybe even get rid of it entirely. But i guess theres a problem with that too because Karl Marx wanted to get rid of the class system (close to/exactly the same as “economic imbalances“). what started out as a good idea from Karl Marx went sour because it was way to easy for smart/powerful people to take over. I think we should make the standard living in all countries a lot better. I don’t have a proposal for how to do this but thats where we should start. Much past just raising the standard of living would just be making a socialist society. People should learn to accept differences of economic status as part of the world.”

Arriving at the same conclusion, albeit by different means, Citizen Nate shares his opinion,

“I believe that the economic imbalances between citizens should be minimized at all cost. People should not have to live in an economy where such imbalances occur, because they can cause discontentment among the populace. Imbalances in the economy will be hard to correct, however, I believe that if we all work together than we will be able to stabilize the economy. i realize that even if you stabilize the economy there will be some people who squandor what they have, thes toe people are the only ones who should have to learn to live with economic imbalances.”

Meanwhile the Government of Chapan, most likely the President, shares a more politically conservative viewpoint,

“i think some people are placed in a situation, where in order to be out of poverty, you would have to rob a bank or hold someone ransom, but since those are illegal i would come to the conclusion that depending on your situation.

But in a place like America i think we do see some people who rely more on the check coming in the mail from the Government then, they, themselves actually working to get meals on the table.

there are both people in poverty who work constantly to earn a dollar a day, they just have to accept they are in poverty and always will be. although they dont.

and there are others who take care of their 20 bebe kids and earn a check in the mail. could this poverty they are in be minimized. yes. but they would rather accept the poverty and accept the check.”

While Representative Saran shares a less idealistic view,

“ I think that economic imbalance is something that should be accepted by people. The reason I think that is because, no matter how hard the government tries to make the gap between rich and poor smaller there always seems to be a problem. The fact of the matter is that there will always be a difference. Some people make more money then others, that’s the way it is now and that’s the way its always been. If this was to be minimized there will be a lot of conflict. Therefore to avoid all that, the richer people should just accept it. Take taxes for example, there is no way that rich people can get the same amount of taxes as the poor people. The reason for that is if you don’t make a ton of money you can’t pay a ton of taxes. With that said I believe that economic imbalances should be accepted unless someone comes up with a better way to approach the problem.”

Can a society fix poverty?  Does society want to fix poverty?  These questions are quintessential when it comes to deciding how a society should be governed and what kinds of laws should be passed.  It is obvious that the citizens of Chapan have very strong opinions on this subject, but how will they use these points of view to better the lives of their citizens?

After their first true “year” on play, the citizens of Laughganistan, a high school government class at Shawnee Mission North High School in Overland Park, Kansas, came together in Town Hall to discuss a topic that has weighed down the minds of citizens all over the world for much of history, the importance of economic equality.  As long as there have been human beings living in organized communities, there has been the issue of equality.  Should everyone be equal?  If so, how do we accomplish that?  Following the leadership of their instructor, Kayte Cormack the leaders of Laughganistan are giving input to solve this issue in their own country.

The discussion began with a posting from

“Are economic imbalances between citizens something people just have to accept, or could and should they be minimized?”

Jeremy was the first to publish a response with realistic insight,

“Of course economic imbalances could and should be minimized but that isn’t how life works. It isn’t like if your bank account is running low the government will pitch in some extra cash too boost you back to security. I’m not at all spitting arrogance either because I am going to be hit hard in debt and I accept my responsibillities and will find away to recover. So in conclusion, no, things should remain they are with minimal interferences.”

Representative Holly wrote back from a more idealistic approach,

“I think that economic imbalance could be minimized but we would have to work together as a country to figure out how to overcome the imbalance. Life is not always fair, and until our country works through this economic imbalance we will have to accept it.”

Representative Krista agreed with this theory but went a little further in her explanation, calling for a change in culture as well as policy,

“I definetely think that economic imbalances can be minimized, but it would take much time and alot of hard work. I think that the biggest problem is probably that its not our communities common goal, i mean… the rich enjoy having more money than everyone else. Maybe if we didn’t idolize material things so much than it wouldn’t be such a big problem, but we do. We need to make people think about more than themselves and just their families, make them think about the generations to come and their economy.”

Bradner also shares Jeremy’s point of view,

“They should be minimized but this game is about real life and those things just don’t change in real life. There are people that are doing very well, I’m not but am I complaining? N0!!!!!! Because it’s life and pretty soon things will level out and I’ll be on top and the person that used to be on top will be at the bottom. Things should stay the way they are.”

Interestingly, Elaine swoops in with a legislative idea,

“Economic imbalances between citizens should be minimized by having taxes based on how much money you have and providing essentials at a lower price. This way the poor will be getting what they need and the owners of the business will still profit from their product.”

As a bid to please fellow citizens, Senator Ali explains a different point of view,

“Equilibrium is something that comes naturally. When we’re capable of being able to “control” the way things are being done properly, then the economic imbalance will be altered to something that everyone is able to sustain, contain, and understand. Until then, we’ve got to do what we can with what we have. Things aren’t simple, life is an example, people have to figure things out to where they work. It could be minimized if everyone worked together but not everyone has the same views. So it’s really up to how everyone reacts to the imbalance, some want the power so they will do what they can to keep it that way while others try to neutralize the balance. Whichever way, people will learn to survive at the best of their ability.”

Samanthat B. sounds fed up with this question altogether,

“People will always disagree. It can’t be fixed. It can’t be minimized that much either. Some people are natural born complainers. People will always be at odds with each other. Especially when we have two different political parties in office. Everyone just kinda has to deal and try and be as civil as possible and not go screaming about for no reason and just waste everybody’s time.”

In a similar vein, Marissa believes that everyone has the ability to fix their own problems,

“I think that economic balances between citizens are both something that people have to accept and could and should be minimized. The citizens of the country, if they are poor should think of ways to raise money, or they should help somebody out for money, like do business with them or something. The citizens should be able to earn money somehow, even if they are poor. They have to figure out a way to earn money and that makes the game more challenging. That is why I think that economic balances between citizens are both something that people have to accept and could and should be minimized.”

While Jerusalem believes we all depend on each other, rather than each individual upon themselves,

“I think that economic imbalances could and should be changed. The whole economy is linked and if the poor part of the economy is failing, eventually the rich part of the society will fall with them due to the business cycle…so there should be loans given to citizens…”

While Jake ends the conversation with a poignant,

“I think we should have a lockbox.”

This is not a question with an easy answer.  Differing view points can lead to discussions and either changes or reiterations in policies and thus the way citizens will lead their lives.  Laughganistan is working hard to answer the questions that are put forth in a thoughtful and meaningful manner.  The next step is to use these ideas to further benefit the lives of the citizens within Laughganistan.

 “1. What are my political, economic, and social philosophies?”

 The VonEyeians stepped up to the plate and after much thought, answered these questions with thoughts that will help them to connect to their country in much deeper ways.

Seth began the discussion with an idea that class life and CM life should be woven together so that citizen’s behavior in one should effect the other,

“The leaders of our nation should be chosen by how the act in class. Such as whether or not the try to help in class, or are just a pain in the butt. They should be thoughtful, fair, trustworthy, and most of all honest. There number one priority should be to keep the more powerful citizens from overrunning the country. The country needs a strict government. By how hard someone works in class, the harder they work, the more they excell in the country. I would rather live in a country that valued freedom so that no matter how far underclass one would be, they could not be thrown in jail without proper cause. I would say humans are naturally good but it is events in life that cause humans to make different choices that could be good or bad.”

Sarah.M has the same overall theory as Seth but without binding the in class actions with the in Civic Mirror actions,

“Leaders of the nation should be determined by popular vote, but must have organizational skills. They must also be responsible, care about what they are doing, timely, and able to create and follow schedules. The number one priority should be to uphold the laws that are already in place, and (in the case of lawmakers and president) listen to those who got them where they are. Every community needs basic rules and guidelines as well as punishments for when they are broken.”

Humans are naturally good and trustworthy, but circumstances shape who they become. Humans are also naturally lazy, so we will often choose the easy way out regardless of the morality. For the same reason, we are also naturally selfish; if we have no reason to or are not forced to, often we will watch out for ourselves first and others second.”

People should be able to attain what they can in any legal manner, i.e., capitalism. There should be no limits to what can be achieved so long as the one achieving it has the resources to do so. The government’s job is to govern and provide guidelines, not to interfere and meddle; let the government do their job and the people do theirs. I would rather live in a country that valued freedom, for through freedom one can create the (possibly) needed equality, but simple equality can be equally bad just as easy as equally good.”

Amanda used her experience outside of the classroom do discover her own political/social/economic beliefs,

“Leader should be determined by majority vote. The leader should also have the main characteristics, which would be like responsible, caring, and willing to do the job. Some of the skills that the leader should have would be, time, which means they should make time to do the job they were elected to do, and again being responsible, caring, and willing. The number one priority of the leader should be to uphold and enforce. Also leader needs to be able to listen to the voice of the people that elected him/her. The most important thing that a nation needs to run correctly is laws and for the laws to be enforced and uphold. The nation can’t have a leader or lawmakers that don’t enforce or make laws to help out the citizens.

Government could have a say in what people get, like food, money, and land. But I think that the government shouldn’t have a say in it unless the issue gets out of hand. Citizens also shouldn’t be limited to the amount of stuff they get. I think the best way to determine who gets what is by the amount of money people have.

Humans are naturally good but just choose to make mistakes that make them look or sound bad. People can also be trustworthy or deceitful. When thinking about this stuff about humans there are people that can be both so you can’t really choose between. Some humans are hard-working and some are lazy. Really it depends on the person. I think most humans are selfish, because most the time all you think about is you, you, you, not what can I do for that person.”

       It seems the citizens of VonEye01 believe in the general good of humanity which is always a comforting thing to know! They realize, however, that citizens of any country need a particular kind of guidance and it seems VonEyeians agree so far that  this guidance should be democratic in some way although economic ideas differ slightly. It is interesting how much personal experience effects political ideals and it will be equally interesting to see if experience with the Civic Mirror will further cement these beliefs or push them to develop new ideals. We will have to wait and see….