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 Property Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Market Socialist Party
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: November 2137
Description[?]:
| We believe in the concept of private property and what one does on one`s private property is none of the government`s business, unless it infringes on the rights of others. |
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 | 08:13:15, November 05, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Moderates | To | Debating the Private Property Act |
| Message | Unfortunately, since the Market Socialist Party linked two issues that share no commonality, we must decline this bill. If seperated, we would vote for the former section. |
| Date | 08:42:52, November 05, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the Private Property Act |
| Message | Absolutely not. We vote no. |
| Date | 09:41:58, November 05, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Property Act |
| Message | When you mean former section are you referring to Article 1 or 2? |
| Date | 21:39:09, November 06, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Property Act |
| Message | Is this better? |
| Date | 21:53:48, November 06, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Moderates | To | Debating the Private Property Act |
| Message | Yes, that we can support. |
| Date | 02:03:25, November 07, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Property Act |
| Message | When collective interest require seizure for -vital- work, the owner is dedommaged fairly. There is no equity problem with the current law. The proposed modification would give big terran proprietary a 'veto' right against the deployment of critical -vital- infrastructure, which is not fair. |
| Date | 03:03:00, November 07, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Moderates | To | Debating the Private Property Act |
| Message | What constitutes vital government works? Building a road to increase urban sprawl and tourism? Or maybe a sports stadium? Often the government removes people's property in order to "spur the economy" or prepetuate "needed development." These projects rarely match what the government claims. |
| Date | 23:59:48, November 07, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Property Act |
| Message | Vital work are, among other, essential building of the kind 'not in my court yard' where concensus cannot be acheived and an expert commity must select the site that is the less penalizing. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 201 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 171 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 17 |
| Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy. |
| Random quote: "While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." - Vladimir Lenin |