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: Redistribution Act (Farms)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Democratic Party of Darnussia
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: February 2090
Description[?]:
| Yes I am being populus |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning farm size.
Old value:: Small farms are encouraged to merge together into larger ones.
Current: Small farms are encouraged to merge together into larger ones.
Proposed: Farms that grow too large are broken up and the land redistributed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:04:03, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Redistribution Act (Farms) |
| Message | Since farms are now privatised, I think this waould be a lot more fair way to distribute the land. |
| Date | 18:30:31, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Redistribution Act (Farms) |
| Message | Sounds a bit too socialist for my tastes... |
| Date | 22:42:00, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Redistribution Act (Farms) |
| Message | this will create inefficiency. |
| Date | 22:42:18, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Redistribution Act (Farms) |
| Message | ohw wait its privatized... but still |
| Date | 00:42:20, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Redistribution Act (Farms) |
| Message | I always saw farms as private land ownership. Why are we splitting up the land in such a case? |
| Date | 05:25:21, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Democratic Alliance | To | Debating the Redistribution Act (Farms) |
| Message | 'I always saw farms as private land ownership. Why are we splitting up the land in such a case?' To protect individual farmers. Otherwise these farmers are sometimes forced to sell their land until one business completely dominates agriculture because they bought all the land, built a massive farm and are cutting costs, not to mention hygiene and sanitation, in order to be able to harvest the whole farm in a short period of time. This way, we protect our farmers who in turn will produce better produce and provide healthy competition. So you see in the end it is benefitting to the farmers and provides competition and thus is both socialist and capitalist. Fair enough for everyone? |
| Date | 05:38:31, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Redistribution Act (Farms) |
| Message | ...with that argument behind this I'd have to say no. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 316 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 361 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 73 |
| Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson |