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 Rights
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
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 2095
Description[?]:
| The owner of a piece of land shall be secure in his possessions against arbitrary government seizure. |
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:: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
Current: The victim of eminent domain sets compensation, government can appeal to the courts if they deem the cost too high.
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 | 20:55:16, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Property Rights |
| Message | Drop article 2. If article 1 passes, then article 2 is irrelevant. If article 1 does not pass, then we support the current state of compensation. As such we can not vote for this bill, with both articles present. |
| Date | 23:32:34, August 10, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Property Rights |
| Message | Article 2 provides another layer of protection. If article 1 is overturned, article 2 will remain and provide some level of protection. |
| Date | 04:30:35, August 11, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Property Rights |
| Message | I agree with article one (I have proposed it in a seperate Bill). However I feel I agree with ASP on the issue of the second article as I feel neutral mediation is the only way to ensure a fair result. |
| Date | 14:53:14, August 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Property Rights |
| Message | Article 2 simply provides the means for unscrupulous individuals to extort money from the state. The ideal that the seller sets the price is fine if there is a competitive market. The use of eminent domain to start with destroys any market factors in the particular transaction, so there is no competitive market to constrain the seller in price setting. What you are doing is creating a monopolistic situation with no possibility of competition appearing. A license to print money. Yes the appeal procedure can offset this monopolistic power somewhat, but at the cost of very expensive delays and the cost of the whole appeal system. This is too much burden on the tax payer's pockets. Leave the compensation being neutrally decided. With regard to article 1 see http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=13081 |
| Date | 12:57:54, August 12, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Property Rights |
| Message | "Vital works" is hardly arbitrary is it? Why don't you and the Conservatives get together and define "vital"? |
| Date | 06:21:53, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Property Rights |
| Message | A "sale" requires the seller's consent. Seller sets the price, the buyer chooses to accept or make an offer. If the buyer has the ability to force the sale, this is already "monopolistic" and unfair. And why is court more expensive for an price-setting appeal than any other price-setting? |
| Date | 06:51:09, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Property Rights |
| Message | There are times when the government does have to have the right to make compulsary purchases of land or property. This includes the provision of essential infrastructure and defence facilities. e.g. hydroelectric energy, canals, railways, interstates, aiports, docks, airbases, defense installations, listening posts etc. We have already argued out why the seller is not the person to set the price. You disagree, fine, but we will oppose. |
| Date | 18:47:46, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Property Rights |
| Message | We would define "vital" to mean vital to national security. If Baltusia is invading, "vital" would be using private land to dig a trench. The government is a representative of the people. People do not have the "right" to take or use anyone else's property without permission. 1 person doesnt have this right, 100 people do not have this right, 1,000,000 do not have this right. You cannot say that it is ok to take someone's property away from them simply because they are outnumbered. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 128 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 322 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow role-play that seems to belong to the world of fantasy, science fiction and futuristic speculation. |
| Random quote: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." - Ralph Nader |