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: Farm Size Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Socialist Movement
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: April 2091
Description[?]:
We believe that it is in the interests of many small farming communities that farms should not be allowed to grow to big. This enables smaller farms (especially poor ones which are subsidised) to compete fairly - it's not right in our opinion that large farms make vast profit while others are left in poverty. In short, it allows more competition. It also ensures that large scale farms for cattle etc don't destroy woodland and natural surroundings to become insanely big. The USM hopes that they will be supported in this Bill.
We propose that a government tribunal, consisting of economic and agricultral ministers as well as local government heads would meet to decide the fate of any farm which is deemed to be too big. This would distinguish from family farms which are succesful and adhering to agricultural guidelines, and from large multi production cattle farms and the like which serve no purpose to the community. Any sucessful family farm which would have to lose a proportion of its land would be compensated; in the same way that the government compensates with it's Emminent Domain Bill. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:19:53, August 02, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | We can see the advantages to this proposal, though we will admit to being concerned about what is constituted as a large farm.
We would also point out that as small farms are subsidised, they can compete already with larger farms and the possible economic problems if farm size is set to low as they could all fall within the subsidisation band which could (theoretically) be extremely expensive. |
| Date | 23:35:06, August 02, 2005 CET |
From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | Subsidising these farms costs money. I belive that this would be significantly reduced by breaking up farms which are deemed as large, and by this I am talking multi hectare, mass production farms which are threatening livelihoods and our countryside. |
| Date | 14:09:23, August 03, 2005 CET |
From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | I don't believe punishing farmers for having "too large a farm" is really bad government policy. If a farm begins to grow to large , many farmers will cease or slow down production to ensure their farm and their family's are not broken up. Why punish farmers for being successful? |
| Date | 14:11:47, August 03, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | I should have said " I do believe punishing farmers" and not "don't believe" is really bad government policy. My apologies. |
| Date | 14:38:15, August 03, 2005 CET |
From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | It's not punishing farmers at all. The majority of farms which grow to insane proportions are large corporate and industrial farms for the mass production of cattle etc. These farms expand again and again, leaving smaller, hard working farming families in poverty; and expand by chopping down woodland and destroying countryside. This can't be right. There is a difference between being successful and taking advantage of other faming communites. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want all my produce going coming from one large, 'cash crop' style farm while leaving farmers who have worked for generations with nothing.
|
| Date | 13:24:36, August 04, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | Thats a good point USM, but what about the small farmer who through hard work was able to succeed and lift his family out of poverty. Are we to punish him for that and break it up. There is a difference between massive cattle farms and individual family farms that are successful. Thats the spot of confusion I have with this bill. Also there is the job factor. These farms provide many jobs to people. |
| Date | 13:59:43, August 04, 2005 CET |
From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | Again, there is the fine line between having a successful farm, and a multi-hectare, production, consumer orientated fully mechanised farm which is growing to big for it's boots and serving the production of large multinationals. I fully agree with you - why should that stop us breaking up these cattle farms which are serving no beneficial purpose to the community or to Hobrazia?
I beliebve that the query regarding jobs is unfounded. If large farms were broken up, there would still be the need for agricultural employment amongst smaller farms. They are subsidised to help with aspects such as this. Mechanising agriculture seemed to cost many jobs 'back in the day' - but nobody seemed to mind and many employment posts were actually unaffected. I think that is comparable to the situation here.
PS - i'll update the Bill to fit some of your concerns. |
| Date | 14:04:20, August 04, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | Ok, because overall I agree with the idea of grotesque massive cattle farms taking over small farms. It's just the small farmer who happens to be suucessful that I am concerned about. |
| Date | 15:01:37, August 04, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | This satisfies my major concerns. I like the description of the bill. From what I could gather from it is that this bill would actually protect the smaller farms that are successfull while preventing the mass production farms that put small farmers out of buisness. And the compensation that certain smaller farms will recieve coincides with the eminiant domain bill. I was reluctant to support at first, but this bill will provide protection for the family farms. So you have my support on this bill. |
| Date | 22:35:35, August 04, 2005 CET |
From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | This sounds fair. It was the differentiation between family farms and corporate cattle ranch behemoths which devour rainforest (RL Brazil anyone? Thank you again, McDonalds) that won me over! |
| Date | 22:52:17, August 04, 2005 CET |
From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Farm Size Act | | Message | Yes, but if you read the Bill in full, you see that the particular element you are questioning is covered! |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 368 |
| no | Total Seats: 0 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 32 |
| Random fact: If you want to know how many players there are in Particracy right now, check out the Game Statistics buried at the bottom of the World Map screen. |
| Random quote: "Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary." - Robert Louis Stevenson |