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: Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union 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: March 2548
Description[?]:
| An act to remove the ability of the government to take land under eminent domain. |
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 10:49:28, March 16, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | It is private property. The very reason that man entered into modern society is a mutual protection of individual rights, based on inter alia the protection of private property. The state should not be able to confiscate property from individuals, even if it is compensated. |
| Date | 00:07:09, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | And if we need to build roads, hospitals, schools, fire and police stations...we will not be able to put them where they need to be if this passes. As such...opposed. |
| Date | 00:20:48, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | We will, it'll simply require the state to buy land in the market like any other person. Would we allow a private company to take land from citizens without their consent, even giving them compensation, just because they're going to build a road? Of course not. |
| Date | 09:24:30, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | The government may seize private property for vital government works.
A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
The first law quoted means that private companies cannot seize land and law number 2 establishes a neutral body to determine compensation JUP! |
| Date | 09:26:49, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | Exactly, a private company cannot no matter the purpose they intend to use the land for, and that is right. Why should the state be able to though?
The fact that compensation is given is irrelevant. Some things can't be compensated. |
| Date | 09:45:38, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | "The first law quoted means that private companies cannot seize land and law number 2 establishes a neutral body to determine compensation JUP!"--me
"Exactly, a private company cannot no matter the purpose they intend to use the land for, and that is right."
As I said...you assumed that private companies can take land from people and I showed you that they can't. |
| Date | 09:51:21, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | "Would we allow a private company to take land from citizens without their consent, even giving them compensation, just because they're going to build a road? Of course not."
What part of "of course not" makes you think that we suggested private companies can take land? You should probably mean what "not" means, it's quite an important concept. |
| Date | 10:12:35, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | Oh that's easy. It was implied. What's the matter? Do not understand what the term implication means? You implied the fact that under current law, private companies can take land! I showed you that they can't and I showed you that we have a neutral body for appeals when it comes to compensation.
You really are an idiot JUP! |
| Date | 10:17:09, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | No, the comparison was made between private companies and the state, that private companies cannot forcibly take land - they must buy land in the marketplace, and the state should have to do the same.
You are frustrating sometimes Rightist, but I'm sure one day someone will teach you how to read, and then you will be able to realise how very wrong you are. |
| Date | 10:29:28, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | Then you should have made yourself more clear instead of looking like an idiot.
And I can read quite well actually. If I couldn't read, I would not have earned a dual degree in school. |
| Date | 10:37:32, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | Oh go suck an egg JUP! The way my professors grade (all with doctorates though one of them needs to learn more of the field) you had no choice but to know your stuff. So why don't you grow the fuck up asshole. |
| Date | 11:07:26, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | You forget yourself JUP! I am a polite individual but not to people who decide to insult my intelligence. As to being cultured, I'm also well versed in culture having had parents who lived overseas. I read up on customs of other nations in the event that I actually go and visit them (which I visited Panama in 1998). And I went to school in the United States and am proud of the education I received from the school I went to. Maybe if you broaden your horizons a bit more, you would understand this fucktard. |
| Date | 11:16:53, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | Well that's good you're proud of your education, but as for culture, well, your Americanism pervades everything you say. You are really rather blind to the rest of the world outside your borders, regardless of where your parents lived and where you holidayed. You fail to see issues from the other side. This will be a problem for you in the future. |
| Date | 11:28:08, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Land (Eminent Domain) Abolition Act | | Message | I fail to see issues from the otherside? Considering the fact that I have a bachelors in Government I find that insulting. I do my level best to keep my "nationality" out of these debates but you are the one that keeps dragging it into play in most debates. You are an asshole and an uncultured little bastard. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 105 |
| no | Total Seats: 395 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Cultural Protocol bills must provide a real-life equivalent or short description for the ethnic groups, languages and religions contained in them, such that it would be easy for an unfamiliar player to understand (e.g. "Dundorfian = German"). Where appropriate, they should also provide guidance to players on where to find help with translations and character names. This might include, for example, links to Google Translate, Behind the Name's Random Name Generator and Fantasy Name Generators. |
| Random quote: "Society comprises two classes: those who have more food than appetite, and those who have more appetite than food." - Nicolas Chamfort |