Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: January 5472
Next month in: 03:24:39
Server time: 16:35:20, April 19, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): itsjustgav | R Drax | starfruit | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: Eminent Domain Reform

Details

Submitted by[?]: Independent Right

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: September 2377

Description[?]:

The government should ideally have a freer hand at the development of the nation. Individuals Rights are of course something that should be respected, but they should not be allowed to interfere in the furtherance of the Greater Good.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date01:11:50, March 20, 2007 CET
FromIndependent Right
ToDebating the Eminent Domain Reform
MessageAnd we'll note that the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights once again stands in the way of more appropriate reform. Bah!

Date01:29:05, March 20, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the Eminent Domain Reform
MessageWe can't support this. Article 2 is amoral. With that system, we can buy their house for a dollar and an empty beer can. This is a violation of human rights. We applaud the UDHR for stopping "more appropriate reform."

Date01:31:48, March 20, 2007 CET
FromSocial Democrats
ToDebating the Eminent Domain Reform
MessageWe vehemently support the UDHR, referring to our debate on the subject. We cannot allow corporations seize property and at the same time the biased party being the arbiter. We feel this as collectivisation from the communist era. It is unacceptable.

Date06:48:46, March 20, 2007 CET
FromLeft Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Eminent Domain Reform
MessageWe feel that the current policies are preferable to the proposed.

Date11:48:45, March 20, 2007 CET
FromGreenpeace Party
ToDebating the Eminent Domain Reform
MessageWe are disagree.

Date16:03:30, March 20, 2007 CET
FromAldegar Freedom Party
ToDebating the Eminent Domain Reform
MessageUnfortunately the TCP cannot support this bill proposed by a party we are usually quite closely alligned with. The TCP believes in the individual's fundamental right to private propety, and the rights to determine everything in regards to that property that he owns, and also in the fact that no one, not even the government, may infringe upon this right, under any circumstance whatsoever. Again, the TCP views Article 2 as being too deterministic and interventionist on the government's behalf.

Date16:27:43, March 20, 2007 CET
FromIndependent Right
ToDebating the Eminent Domain Reform
MessageWell, it looks like we're alone on this one. =p

Date21:24:30, March 20, 2007 CET
FromS.C.A.F.R.
ToDebating the Eminent Domain Reform
Messagedisagree.

Date22:07:55, March 20, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the Eminent Domain Reform
MessageOf course, the communists are the ones that support this.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 161

no
    

Total Seats: 467

abstain
 

Total Seats: 22


Random fact: Your user name is not your party name. Choose a concise and easy to remember user name. You can change your party name at any point in time later in the game.

Random quote: "Poetry is about the grief; politics is about the grievance." - Robert Frost

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 85