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: Local Farm Control Act of 2445
Details
Submitted by[?]: Lodamun Distributionist Party
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: August 2446
Description[?]:
| The LDP believes that it is far more effective to allow local governments to control farming subsidies regulation, especially to low-income farming communities. Not only will this unravel the red tape inherent in national control of such regulation, but we feel that it is much more likely that local governments will be better aware of the needs of nearby families and communities. It is in a local government's best interest, after all, to help their own area's farms quickly, efficiently and, most importantly, correctly. We are aware of the fairly broad scope of these articles, and would be more than willing to break them up if need be. We ask for the feedback of the PFP on this matter. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Current: Agricultural crops which are considered beneficial to the enviroment or to the continued ecological safety of the state are subsidized.
Proposed: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the use of pesticides.
Old value:: Farmers are required to list chemicals used on their crops.
Current: Chemical pesticides, herbicides and fungicides are banned.
Proposed: Local governments may choose to regulate pesticides certification programs.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:41:01, August 20, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Local Farm Control Act of 2445 |
| Message | This bill promotes one thing - regulation. Worse yet, the patchwork effect will create a wide range of inequitable systems. Most disturbing is any government power -local or national- to regulate farm size. I hope the PFP will continue to embrace the principles of economic freedom and reject bills which will allow local governments to mandate communist agricultural communes! |
| Date | 18:43:24, August 20, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Local Farm Control Act of 2445 |
| Message | We agree that the "farm size" article is at best controversial and at worst dangerously polarizing. If the PFP is (as I suppose) completely opposed to it - fine. It is easily taken out. We planned on it. But to say that this bill as a whole only promotes regulation is clearly wrong. Read the articles. In the cases of both subsidy and chemical regulation policy, we CURRENTLY have COMPLETE national regulation. The LDP is proposing that those regions that wish (as the URP does) to completly abolish regulation can. How is that promoting regulation? This isn't about crafting communes - it's about letting the local governments (and more importantly, local people) have a bigger say in their lives and livelihoods. If the URP would reread the articles, I think that they would see that the aims of both the URP and the LDP are reflected in these pro-region proposals that favor the freeing of local economies, if that is what they wish. |
| Date | 22:10:50, August 20, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Local Farm Control Act of 2445 |
| Message | I thought we abolished regulation on agriculture. |
| Date | 22:17:09, August 20, 2007 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Local Farm Control Act of 2445 |
| Message | We cant agree to #1. |
| Date | 21:27:14, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Local Farm Control Act of 2445 |
| Message | I am sorry to inform you that you thought incorrectly. With that in mind, does this seem any more palatable? |
| Date | 21:28:45, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Local Farm Control Act of 2445 |
| Message | NP, why not? |
| Date | 05:17:39, August 22, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Local Farm Control Act of 2445 |
| Message | No, I'd rather eliminate regulation completely than pursue half-measures. |
| Date | 04:44:36, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Local Farm Control Act of 2445 |
| Message | but these are still better steps than the current offerings. |
| Date | 17:12:59, August 24, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Local Farm Control Act of 2445 |
| Message | Thanks for the backup, FL, but I really didn't expect realistic compromise in the PFP. It's good to know some people recognize attempts at teamwork when they see them. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 182 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 340 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 54 |
| Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
| Random quote: "Political correctness is just tyranny with manners." - Charlton Heston |