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: Repeal of Eminent Domain.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: August 2112
Description[?]:
| Eminent Domain is a violation of citizens rights. The government does not have the right to take property without the owners approval. This bill ends this government theft of property and gives the citizen back his basic right to live without government intrusion. |
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 | 00:31:11, September 17, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Repeal of Eminent Domain. |
| Message | Lets end this law that allows the government to take at will private property of our citizens. |
| Date | 01:20:01, September 17, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Repeal of Eminent Domain. |
| Message | I reiterate the remarks made the last time you tried to do this. The Government only takes property for vital works, the key word being vital, it then compensates said people. This compensation is set by an independent body, not the Government. |
| Date | 01:29:42, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Repeal of Eminent Domain. |
| Message | But what if the people refuse to give up their property? Compensation matters little when your home is taken from you. |
| Date | 01:50:21, September 17, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Repeal of Eminent Domain. |
| Message | They can't. I understand your position on individual rights, I honestly do, but the rights of the one is insignificant compared to the rights of the many and Governments position is to provide for the many. I'll give you a hypothetical situation: Area X requires a hospital, badly. The nearest hospital is 3hours away by Ambulance. The only space in the area large enough for the hospital is owned by person Y. Person Y lives on the land with his family of 5. Which is the more important? I put to you that person Y should be moved, but fully compensated for that move, and the hospital constructed on that site. That hospital could save hundred - thousands of each year as people no longer have to travel such long distances. Though person Y and his family are "put out" in the short term they do receive compensation, be it the full cost of the land (and probably more) plus housing et al. The loss of that land is a small price to pay for the advantage of many. |
| Date | 10:59:38, September 17, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Repeal of Eminent Domain. |
| Message | We stand against this bill for the reasons already detailed above. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 79 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 295 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Josef Stalin |