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: Private Ownership of Homes and Businesses
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: January 2113
Description[?]:
| All businesses seized to make way for democratic workers councils or other ventures that were not viable without government intervention will be evaluated and decided whether a fair value has been paid for them. The price of the physical equipment shall be considered, as well as the actual and potential profits. If the price paid is deemed too low, the workers council shall be permitted to make up the difference. If they choose not to, the original owner shall be permitted to negotiate a sale with the workers council, or else shall take possession of it. If the price is determined to have been at or above the appropriate level, the workers council shall be permitted to negotiate a sale, if no sale is agreed upon, they shall be permitted to run the business however they see fit, but be required to survive on their own, as well as paying for their own losses without government support. Workers belonging to DWC businesses that change ownership shall be permitted to take a vote on whether to stay as employees or leave and form their own DWC run business, using their own funds as the investment. Once these have been taken care of, the government shall take no action in the market to either encourage, require, discourage, or ban democratic workers councils. State owned housing shall be sold to the current occupants. The occupants shall be provided with means-tested loans, interest will be added to the tax bill when earnings reach a certain amount, and the principal can be paid any time. |
Proposals
Article 1
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.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: invalid choice
Current: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Proposed: The government does not intervene in the market nor provide any form of subsidies/relief to industries.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government policy regarding housing.
Old value:: The state provides public housing to low-income families.
Current: The state contracts with private companies to provide public housing.
Proposed: All housing is privately-owned.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:06:55, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Private Ownership of Homes and Businesses |
| Message | Opposed to the no-seizures rule on the same basis as ASP has argued for some time. There are emergencies when some eminent domain is necessary, although it should be an extremely rare last resort. We could support the victim determines compensation if there is a goverenmt right of appeal: neither side should have sole control. Opposed to any erosion in local government powers, so oppsoed to article 3. |
| Date | 00:10:53, September 16, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Private Ownership of Homes and Businesses |
| Message | What about the essence of the bill, no interference in business(to be added soon) |
| Date | 18:41:59, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Private Ownership of Homes and Businesses |
| Message | it's impossible to have "no interference in business." There is inevitably going to be some, such as corporate taxation or workplace safety rules. The question is how to make it fair, balancing the right of property-owners with the rights of society and workers. If we have democratic workers councils able to take over their workplace, then it's important that there be fair compensation paid to the previous owner, as laid in out in the original bill on cooperatives. |
| Date | 18:51:34, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Private Ownership of Homes and Businesses |
| Message | So that's a no then? |
| Date | 20:22:07, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Private Ownership of Homes and Businesses |
| Message | It is. But a nuanced no! |
| Date | 21:14:42, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Private Ownership of Homes and Businesses |
| Message | Can I get green support for the removal of government involvement in DWCs? |
| Date | 04:41:44, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Private Ownership of Homes and Businesses |
| Message | What about the bill as it stands now? |
| Date | 22:03:23, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Private Ownership of Homes and Businesses |
| Message | Yes to article one, no to the rest. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 124 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 139 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 37 |
| Random fact: Any RP law granting extraordinary "emergency powers" or dictator-like powers to a government must be passed by at least a 2/3rds majority, but (like all RP laws) may always be overturned by a simple majority vote of the legislature. |
| Random quote: "A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests." - Niccolo Machiavelli |