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: Home Sanctuary Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2064
Description[?]:
This act will ensure that all citizens of Likaton are given and guaranteed the right to their own personal sanctuary. This sanctuary is their house, apartment, etc.
Every citizen is protected within the limits of this bill from unreasonable search and seizure. Their personal property is theirs and shall not be seized by the police.
The personal lives of the citizens, until they violate any legislated law or court ruling, shall not be encrouched upon by officers of the law abusing their power. All citizens have the right to go about their business without being harassed.
The government and the police also have no place in the bedrooms of Likaton. What goes on in their is between the consenting citizens. The government and police have no business intervening in one's personal bedroom for any reason, except one that is justified with a court order.
The phone lines, email and other means of personal communication are to remain private. They are not the state's business.
The only time that this doesn't apply is to business and/or the police have obtained the necessary court permission to carry out the seizure of evidence.
Lastly, the personal space of each citizen shall only be encrouched upon when they have broken the law. Merely being bystanders is not grounds enough for any violation. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:52:39, June 02, 2005 CET |
From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | I oppose the Car reference.
If one was pulled over for speeding the car should be allowed to be searched if the suspect has ndeed been caught over the limit. |
| Date | 23:28:09, June 02, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | Of course we will support. there are so many laws It is easy to assume are already in place because they are obvious... well done for spotting that there is actually nothing to say so. |
| Date | 05:31:47, June 03, 2005 CET |
From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | RWL's statement about the car may have a point.
How does everyone else feel about it? Should it be changed to be less libratarian? Or... |
| Date | 08:32:37, June 03, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | No unwarranted search and seizure is prohibited..and we will endorse that stand.
However, we will not tolerate the provision that government must not interfere in the social sphere. Some things lead to the degenarion of society and must be stopped. |
| Date | 16:26:13, June 03, 2005 CET |
From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | How would letting two adults decide on their own sexual life hurt the so-called moral fibre of the nation? And the social elements are those which are personal. The whole idea is to respect personal space. |
| Date | 03:10:39, June 04, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | Ssociety has the duty the uphold the rights of every citizen including those in a mother's womb. We cannot allow murder and therfore interfere in the "personal space" that gives parents an excuse to kill their children.
Liberal regulations on the media make it harder for parents to raise their children up with good values, and can promote addiction ot watching tv that is not healthy for society or the individual.
I could go on and on...but I think you already got the point. Remove this "privacy" provision and we will endorse this slate |
| Date | 06:17:36, June 04, 2005 CET |
From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | Parents don't have to place their offspring in front of that glass teat. They can try actually parenting instead of using the television to compensate for their incompetance. |
| Date | 06:23:24, June 04, 2005 CET |
From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | Also, PP, if you actually take the time to read, you'll note that I mention that the rights are taken away IF there is a law broken. And, we already allow abortion. |
| Date | 04:31:25, June 05, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | Society should have the right to decide if something is going and legislate on it...even if no laws are broken.
Making "personal space" a priority over socially responsible behaviour only ever results in degeneracy. |
| Date | 12:04:42, June 05, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | How I interpreted it was that if there was not law to prevent something then the police could not interfere unless it went against 'common taste and decency'. this is hardly saying much at all, and need not be seen as a libertarian social policy. If you want to prevent any of the things cited above from happening, introduce laws to prohibit them. |
| Date | 15:49:12, June 05, 2005 CET |
From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | Ok, I see what you meam, LPE. I changed it very slightly so that it reads "until they violate any legislated law or court ruling" |
| Date | 06:37:37, June 06, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | Okay we are ready to provide cautious support. This is on the understanding that the legislature can always make laws on certain subjects that may affect personal freedom.
We will never seek to ban homosexuality, or variant sexual behaviour. However we will try to influence their behaviour.
|
| Date | 14:08:59, June 07, 2005 CET |
From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Home Sanctuary Act | | Message | "Variant" behaviour should not be treated any different than "normal" behaviour. Only illegal sexual activities in both areas should be legislated against. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 193 |
| no | Total Seats: 0 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The use of proxy servers makes it impossible to detect multiing and is therefore forbidden. Players who access Particracy through a proxy will have their accounts inactivated. |
| Random quote: "Soldiers are not the enemies of the movement. They're potential allies. They're more than that. Soldiers are the only people in America who are paying a stiff price for this war. Everybody else profits. Soldiers are the ones losing their lives, losing friends, having their lives disrupted. The real victims of American imperialism are its soldiers." - Fred Gardner |