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 Act of 2420
Details
Submitted by[?]: Monarchist Party
Status[?]: passed
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: October 2420
Description[?]:
| Eminent Domain is an inherently unfair proposal - as it stands, the government is capable of taking private property for any reason, effectively destroying the concept of 'private property'. This bill will rectify that by banning eminent domain for any reason. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for any reason.
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 | 06:58:53, June 28, 2007 CET | From |  People's Mujaheddin | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act of 2420 |
| Message | The People's Mujaheddin is shocked to see how the CDU can betray basic Christian principles of sharing through unity by allowing and voting FOR Capitalism. |
| Date | 16:36:59, June 28, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democratic Union | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act of 2420 |
| Message | This has precious little to do with sharing: It's about the ability of the government to seize whatever it chooses for why ever it chooses. As current policy stands, eminent domain is little more than government-sponsored theft. And, if the PM wants to engage in theologics, so be it. Aside from the fact that "sharing through unity" is a quasi-Orwellian turn of phrase, is not the virtue of sharing that one chooses to do so of one's own volition? Having to do so because there's a gun pointed at your head, either figuratively or literally, is a far cry from saintliness. Capitalism and piety are not mutually exclusive: Indeed, the latter is without question the greatest tool humanity has yet seen to achieving the former, as the wealth provides the means for the pursuit of the altruistic and the esoteric, both for the individual and wider community and, indeed, the wider society, as capitalism's wealth is capable of uplifting both one's material well-being AND spirits. Bettering the world in such a way hardly seems un-Christian, at least from the CDU's point of view. |
| Date | 16:58:02, June 28, 2007 CET | From | People's Mujaheddin | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act of 2420 |
| Message | How can capitalism better the world when the very principle of capitalism lies within profit? To profit, one needs to exploit. How can a Christian stand by and support a socio-economic structure that breeds on social exploitation? |
| Date | 19:47:00, June 28, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democratic Union | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act of 2420 |
| Message | Is profit necessarily sinful? Man is, by his very nature, a vain, petty, and callous ape who cares only for creature comforts and his progeny: Hobbes was more closer to the truth than Locke was in that regard. While capable aspiring for greater things, he is needlessly self-destructive and cannot rise above what is without the proper motivation. Therein lies the keystone to the nexus of the CDU's theology, as it exists. Salvation is the incentive by which we sacrifice our freedom of choice and bind ourselves to the strictures of Christianity, just as loyal Muslims do for the missives of Mohammed. Such incentivization, while admittedly a bit utilitarian, works precisely in the same manner in the field of economics: New goods and services are provided where they were none on the basis that the providers are duly rewarded, with that reward being profit. At the very worst, profit is morally neutral, if not something whose pursuit should be actively encouraged due to its positive spillover effects. Is capitalism necessarily exploitive? Exploitation, and all the words that stem from its root, have been so corrupted by Marxist connotation as to be virtually useless to substantive discussion. Going out on a limb, it's reasonably safe to assume that by "exploit" the PM is referring to instances such as one individual gains personal advantage at the expense of another individual. In a strictly economic sense, this is a load of cockamemie pap, as for trade to exist both parties must benefit, which makes it mutually exclusive to aforementioned definition of "exploitation". On a greater, more philosophical level, the free market is equally non-culpable: Exploitation, as previously described, is a function of power, not economics, and is a club that is far more often wielded by the state against indivudals than vice versa. And, even in such circumstances as the economic power of private individuals does become exploitive, remedying it, if required, is a matter of policy, not religion and theology. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 45 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 35 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve. |
| Random quote: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Thomas Jefferson |