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: Protection of Private Property Act of 2087
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party
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: June 2099
Description[?]:
A bill to revoke the ability of the government to use its ability of eminent domain to revoke the inherent and god given right of property ownership.
If the government can not buy land without resorting to force, then the object is clearly not essential, as the sheer need for the land in the area would cause the person to bow to the good of the area and to allow himself to partake in the object, while still being properly compensated for his land in a series of voluntary actions. Moreover, the phrase "vital government works" is subject to interpretation to mean a large number of things, including the foreclosure of private property for 'economic development' and other nonsense that are merely obscuring the true meaning of the actions, the infringement of the government both upon property rights and upon the rights of those who will be competed against by this "vital government work", subsidized by the force of the government.
|
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: not recorded
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The government may not seize private property.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:05:39, July 28, 2005 CET |
From |   RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Protection of Private Property Act of 2087 | | Message | Against. First of all "vital government works" does not include economic development (that would be the corporate use option), it means building necessary things such as water purification plants, railroads to alleviate traffic in a certain area, a new power plant if there are energy shortages, etc... Those are all things that help the people. |
| Date | 18:10:04, July 28, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Protection of Private Property Act of 2087 | | Message | Says who? Let's jump OOC for the moment, we see vital government works meaning all sorts of things that aren't vital nor have to do with the government.
Quite frankly, if you can't pay a landowner to give up their land, what right does the government have to take it? Why can't the railroad go somewhere else, where people want it? Why place the coal fired plant in the middle of a populated area rather then in some sparcely populated area, or of a smaller size? |
| Date | 20:37:36, July 28, 2005 CET |
From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Protection of Private Property Act of 2087 | | Message | As has been decided by another bill, each person that loses property for vital government works receives a decent compensation. Vital government works are works that are carried out in the best interest of the population, such as building hospitals, railroads, powerplants, etc.... Should ONE individual have the right to deny hundreds or maybe thousands of people the right to better acces to healthcare, the right to a better life? |
| Date | 16:34:01, July 29, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Protection of Private Property Act of 2087 | | Message | Yes. The government has no ability to force them to sell. Build it somewhere else, where it is wanted. Clearly it isn't vital to the area if the person refuses to sell, or sheer self interest would make him bow to the government's wishes.
Dangerous statement there SDP, "the right to a better life". I could determine that to mean economic measures, the ability of the government to take over private property and convert it over to industry. |
| Date | 17:33:11, July 29, 2005 CET |
From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Protection of Private Property Act of 2087 | | Message | No, that would be "corporate use", which is a different option.
Look at it this way: if there are, out of a population of 1,000 people, 999 people who say "that has to come on that spot, it is needed there", but one person who says "over my dead body". Has that single person got the right to stop it? No. |
| Date | 19:23:00, July 30, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Protection of Private Property Act of 2087 | | Message | (OOC: I don't see something prohibiting corporate use. It isn't as if the wording above hasn't been read to mean corporate use before, and that's the problem our party has)
Why not? What right does the government have to violate the inalienable right to own property? |
| Date | 14:05:18, August 01, 2005 CET |
From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Protection of Private Property Act of 2087 | | Message | It isn't, everyone is still allowed to own property, but the community has the right to seize property (while giving a decent payment for it) for vital public works that benefit the community as a whole. |
| Date | 19:22:47, August 13, 2005 CET |
From | Rutanian Communist Party | To | Debating the Protection of Private Property Act of 2087 | | Message | The Communist Party is vehemently against this proposal. One person does not have the right to deny something that 1000 people want. As Communists, we do not believe that the right to own property is more important than the desires of the people. |
| Date | 12:35:44, August 21, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Protection of Private Property Act of 2087 | | Message | Against. This allows one person to charge extortionate rates to sell one bit of land needed to build a railway. It basically makes it impossible to build railways, motorways or indeed almost any public transport system. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 242 |
| no | Total Seats: 308 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 49 |
| Random fact: If you want to leave Particracy, please inactivate yourself on your user page to save the moderation team some time. |
| Random quote: "You cannot open a book without learning something." - Confucius |