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: Property Protection Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertarian 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 2096
Description[?]:
| The government shall not have the right to take property fom private citizens unless the case is an extreme one, and the property is necissary for public safety. In such an event, the owner must be compensated fully. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The government may not seize private property.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Eminent domain compensation (if eminent domain is legal).
Old value:: The government determines compensation for victims of eminent domain; victims can sue if they deem it unfair.
Current: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
Proposed: The victim of eminent domain sets compensation, government can appeal to the courts if they deem the cost too high.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:46:08, August 07, 2005 CET | From |  New Frontier Party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | I think the first part of this bill negates its intent. I think their are legitimate reasons for eminent domain... but they need to be highly regulated |
| Date | 06:31:29, August 07, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | Not at all. The first part only ensures that it is very difficult for government to take property. That article can be overridden by legislation from this very body, as implied by the wording of the bill. The reason why such a difficult process for eminent domain is required is to ensure that only in extremely necissary cases will eminent domain be used by our government. |
| Date | 06:56:11, August 07, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | We consider ourselves (and are often labeled) radical libertarians, and this bill goes even to far for us. The current laws state that it can only be used for public works, and as such is limited by law. This is more than sufficient. As for allowing people to set their own compensation, obviously, they would bankrupt the government by greatly over exaggerating property value. We will not support this bill. |
| Date | 17:23:05, August 08, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party of Saridan | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | We oppose. If something is needed for use of the government, and the victim is compensated, then the government should be able to take it for the sake of the continuation of Saridan. |
| Date | 10:30:10, August 09, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | "As for allowing people to set their own compensation, obviously, they would bankrupt the government by greatly over exaggerating property value." You distort the law that is being proposed. Yes, the owner would set his own level of compensation, and that level may be challenged by the government. Under current law, the citizen must challegne the offer of the government. Such legal battles are expensive for the citizen and never a certian thing, making government abuse of this law more likey. This bill would only turn the table in favor of the citizen. "If something is needed for use of the government, and the victim is compensated, then the government should be able to take it for the sake of the continuation of Saridan." And my proposed law allows for such, just as you have said is necissary. The only change here is that the law ensures just compensation for the origional owner, and is that not what we desire? If we represent the people, we must have our interests in the citizens, thus we must place the financial interest of the citizen first. This bill will make government abuse of eminent domain immpossible, however, at the same time, it will still allow the government to use eminent domain in order to protect the nation. How can you argue against safety and the protection of rights? |
| Date | 11:30:36, August 09, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | Then you must remove the 1st proposal. Word the bill as you like. The proposal says that government cannot seize private property. Thats what really counts. And your party keeps sighting "protecting" the nation........what about things such as railways, waterways etc? Theyre not a protection, but a public service........ |
| Date | 18:12:08, August 09, 2005 CET | From | Enlightened Socialist Party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | We disagree on both proposals. Eminent domain law is fine as it is. As well as allowing the victim to set compensation being utter lunacy. |
| Date | 14:58:08, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | "The proposal says that government cannot seize private property." Yes, the proposal does, but it does not stop the government from passing legislation that would take the property. This legislation makes eminent domain very difficult to use, but completely possible. due to the difficulty, government would only use it when it truely needs to, and that is as things should be. As for the ESP: you still cannot read. The victim sets compensation, and if it is too much, the government can sue. But you like to ignore the whole truth. As for the use of the term "victim", good word choice. They are victims. Why is the government creating victims? |
| Date | 13:06:11, August 11, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | We believe your motives are noble, but this goes to far for us. we oppose. |
| Date | 21:34:59, August 11, 2005 CET | From | Enlightened Socialist Party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | Victims are created when systems like this are put in place. The victim if this is passed is the nation of Saridan and it's people, victim to a predatory greedy individual. |
| Date | 06:11:21, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | Again, from the ESP, there is a severe lack of argument. Make a point, not an assertion. Or are you incapable of reason? |
| Date | 12:47:24, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Enlightened Socialist Party | To | Debating the Property Protection Act |
| Message | It seems to us that Libertarianism is incapable of reason. The belief that those who are disadvantaged deserve it is also a disgusting one - do you say that the Jews who died in the Holocaust or those murdered by the United States in Iraq are 'their own fault'? Our point is that freedom is extremely important, but one individual is no more important than another. Ergo, allowing one person to destroy our nation and kill many others because they are greedy is patently absurd. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 113 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 187 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "We're the first society in history with the option of living in a world without poverty. The fact poverty still exist says more about our political leaders than I can." - Clint Borgen |