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: Eminent Domain = Government Theft
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: July 2137
Description[?]:
| Private property belongs to a individual or a group of individuals, not the government. Allowing the government to take what property they want regardless of the feelings of the owner of the property thinks about. Forcing people out of their homes for "the good of the people" is wrong and must be stopped. The attempted bribery of the victim with the token compensation they recieve makes this even more wrong. Governments protect their citizens, they don't steal from them and then toss them a bone and expect to be thanked. Let's end this abuse of power by our all powerful government. |
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 | 11:48:59, November 06, 2005 CET | From |  We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain = Government Theft |
| Message | I'll give you a hypothetical situation (given before): 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 hundreds - thousands of people 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. We also question your belief of "token compensation". The compensation, set by an independent body, would cover the full cost of any land purchase plus take into account any harm done to said claiment. We also point out that eminent domain is only used for *vital* works, as outlined above, as is not used just because the government likes the look of the land. Eminent domain is, and should, only be used as a last resort, but there are times when it is necessary for the greater good of the community and Country as a whole and allowing a single claiment to stop the construction of a desperately required hospital, or some such, is just irresponsible on the part of the government. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 201 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 199 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In general, role-play requires the consent of all players. |
| Random quote: "I have opinions of my own - strong opinions. But I don't always agree with them." - George W. Bush |