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: PROTECT the Immercence Temple Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
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: January 2494
Description[?]:
SInce the Convocation stubbornly refused to REFORM our nation's eminent domain laws, we believe that that "power" should be stripped from the Government in its ENTIRETY!!!! Thank you for your full support. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Current: The government may not seize private property.
Proposed: The government may not seize private property.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:04:47, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the PROTECT the Immercence Temple Act |
| Message | This is even worse... where NEED is demonstrated, it is nonsensical to say that one person can own a piece of land they refuse to sell, that will cause harm to everyone else. We're actually having a little trouble believing anyone actually supported this... we wonder how many of the representatives really thought about the ramifications. Think about transport to the capital, and the ramifications if there is NO mechanism to incentivise sale to developers. Think about the recent droughts in Sorbanika, and the fact that farmers can simply refuse to part with land. This is one of the worst bills we've seen. And we don't just mean from the CWFP, from whom we expect nonsense bills. |
| Date | 13:39:11, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the PROTECT the Immercence Temple Act |
| Message | Case in point: The State needs to build a Resevoir, but the land is currently occupied & OWNED by the IMMERENCE TEMPLE (or YOUR house....haha); therefore, the Gov't makes an OFFER of what they would be willing to spend for the property; next, should the Government FORCE the Bishop of IMMERENCE TEMPLE (or YOUR house...haha) to sell the land at the Government's offer??? OF COURSE NOT!!! The Bishop should have a right to COUNTER the proposal as in typical market bid. However, what will happen if the Bishop does NOT want to sell b/c the Temple is built on the very spot that the Prophet Immerence the DIVINE was martyred and ascended into Heaven (or whatever)??? Now, this means that the value of the land is PRICELESS and emotional. The mechanism of allowing the "victim" to "set" his own price just simply gives the owner the right to REFUSE to sell in accordance to his inalienable right to private property ("Inalienable Right" is that which Immerence gave us at BIRTH even if they are not recognized). Obviously, the Bishop sets a REDICULOUS price like "10 Billion LIK," the State is not going to spend that amount and thus bleed the treasury. In other words, the property will never get sold. Nevertheless, if the Government believes that it is in the common interest to build a resevoir, there are "Legal Loopholes" around this law (if it passes): (1) For example, the government can drastically raise property taxes to the point of making it too EXPENSIVE to live on the land and thus foreclose on the property; (2) Or a more shrewd way would be to simply "cave in" and meet the Bishop's rediculous price, and then use that rediculous price as a JUSTIFICATION to say that the "market value is high enough" to raise property taxes on the community to compensate the State for the loss in the excess revenues. (3) From a rational perspective it is a WIN/WIN/WIN, nonetheless, b/c the Bishop's rediculous price of 10 Billion LIK was met; the PUBLIC interest of a resevoir was met; and the State recuperated its loss in revenue from the sale. |
| Date | 14:09:55, November 29, 2007 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the PROTECT the Immercence Temple Act |
| Message | The right to dispose of what one owns is very high on the list of basic human rights supported by the AM RLP. Therefore, forced sale is theft, pure and simple. |
| Date | 17:02:35, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the PROTECT the Immercence Temple Act |
| Message | Likatonia existed long before the RLP. Likatonia will exist long after the RLP. The comical gesture of ephemeral little beings building fences and raiing flags and saying "This much of Likatonia BELONGS to me, is laughable". We're all just visitors. |
| Date | 17:06:54, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the PROTECT the Immercence Temple Act |
| Message | Since we do not believe in artificial constructs like ownership, we see no advantage in inconveniencing everyone to suit the selfishness of one or two people. Best: No ownership beyond "I'm holding it, it is mine" Next best: "We all need it, let's share". Un-best: "I don't want you to have it. Ner Ner". |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 362 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 304 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Submitting a bill without any proposals in it will not attract or detract voters. It will not raise your visibility or change your political position. |
| Random quote: "The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people." - Noam Chomsky |